Comparison of a new visual stylet (Discopo)–guided laryngeal mask airway placement vs conventional blind technique: a prospective randomized study

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

Volumn 35, Issue , 2016, Pages 85-89

  Zhao, Linlin ^a   Zhang, Junfeng ^a   Zhou, Quanhong ^a   Jiang, Wei ^a  

^a SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED SIXTH PEOPLE S HOSPITAL   (China)

Author keywords

Insertion; Laryngeal mask airway; Visual stylet

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLIND LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY; BLOOD STAIN; BREATH HOLDING; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; ELECTIVE SURGERY; ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE; FEMALE; FIBER OPTICS; GENERAL ANESTHESIA; GUIDED LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY; HEMODYNAMIC STRESS; HEMODYNAMICS; HOARSENESS; HUMAN; LARYNGEAL MASK; LARYNX SPASM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DEVICE COMPLICATION; MORBIDITY; OPERATING ROOM; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SORE THROAT; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; VISUAL STYLET; ADVERSE EFFECTS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICES; ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION; INJURIES; MIDDLE AGED; PHARYNX; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZATION; TIME FACTOR;

ADULT; ANESTHESIA, GENERAL; ELECTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; FEMALE; FIBER OPTIC TECHNOLOGY; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMANS; INTUBATION, INTRATRACHEAL; LARYNGEAL MASKS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHARYNX; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANDOM ALLOCATION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84982890351     PISSN: 09528180     EISSN: 18734529     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.06.022     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. [1] Brain, AI, The laryngeal mask—a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth 55 (1983), 801–805.
2. [2] Campbell, RL, Biddle, C, Assudmi, N, Campbell, JR, Hotchkiss, M, Fiberoptic assessment of laryngeal mask airway placement: blind insertion versus direct visual epiglottoscopy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62 (2004), 1108–1113.
3. [3] Chandan, SN, Sharma, SM, Raveendra, US, Rajendra, PB, Fiberoptic assessment of laryngeal mask airway placement: a comparison of blind insertion and insertion with the use of a laryngoscope. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 8 (2009), 95–98.
4. [4] Brimacombe, JR, Problems with the laryngeal mask airway: prevention and management. Int Anesthesiol Clin 36 (1998), 139–154.
5. [5] Rollert, MK, The case against the laryngeal mask airway for anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62 (2004), 739–741.
6. [6] Chu, QJ, Yang, AM, Jia, Z, Xie, GL, Zhang, W, A new visual stylet (Discopo): early clinical experience in patients with difficult intubation. Anesth Intensive Care 39 (2011), 512–513.
7. [7] Keller, C, Brimacombe, J, Puhringer, F, A fibreoptic scoring system to assess the position of laryngeal mask airway devices. Interobserver variability and a comparison between the standard, flexible and intubating laryngeal mask airways. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 35 (2000), 692–694.
8. [8] Brimacombe, J, Keller, C, Judd, DV, Gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital and introducer tool techniques. Anesthesiology 100 (2004), 25–29.
9. [9] Latorre, F, Eberle, B, Weiler, N, et al. Laryngeal mask airway position and the risk of gastric insufflation. Anesth Analg 86 (1998), 867–871.
10. [10] Chauhan, G, Nayar, P, Seth, A, Gupta, K, Panwar, M, Agrawal, N, Comparison of clinical performance of the I-gel with LMA proseal. J Anesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 29 (2013), 56–60.
11. [11] Susheela Taxak, KK, Kaushik, S, Singh, R, A randomized study to compare ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized patients. Egypt J Anesth 29 (2013), 285–290.