The cuffed oropharyngeal airway vs. the laryngeal mask airway: a randomised cross-over study of oropharyngeal leak pressure and fibreoptic view in paralysed patients.
We conducted a randomised cross-over study of 20 patients to test the hypothesis that oropharyngeal leak pressure and the fibreoptic view differ between the cuffed oropharyngeal airway and laryngeal mask airway in paralysed patients. We also tested the design premise that inflation of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway cuff elevates the epiglottis from the posterior pharyngeal wall. Both airways were inserted into each patient in random order. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fibreoptic view were documented at zero volume and after each additional 10 ml up to the maximum recommended volume for each device. The laryngeal mask had a higher maximum (23 vs. 16 cmH2O, p = 0.03), minimum (9 vs. 2 cmH2O, p < 0.02) and overall (17 vs. 9 cmH2O, p < 0.001) oropharyngeal leak pressure compared with the cuffed oropharyngeal airway. The glottic inlet was visible more frequently with the laryngeal mask (96 vs. 39%, p < 0.0001). There was no elevation of the epiglottis from the posterior pharyngeal wall with the cuffed oropharyngeal airway. We conclude that the laryngeal mask forms a more effective seal and provides a better fibreoptic view of the glottic inlet than the cuffed oropharyngeal airway in paralysed patients. Inflation of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway cuff does not cause elevation of the epiglottis.
University of Queensland, Department of Anaesthesia, The Esplanade, Cairns 4870, Australia.
J
J
Brimacombe
C
C
Keller
D000328:Adult; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D004825:Epiglottis; D005260:Female; D005336:Fiber Optic Technology; D005931:Glottis; D006801:Humans; D007442:Intubation, Intratracheal / Q000295:instrumentation*; D017214:Laryngeal Masks; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009960:Oropharynx; D010243:Paralysis; D011312:Pressure