This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brimacombe, J. Articles by Keller, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brimacombe, J. Articles by Keller, C.

Supplementary cleaning does not remove protein deposits from re-usable laryngeal mask devices

[Le nettoyage supplémentaire n’enlève pas les dépôts de protéine sur les masques laryngés réutilisables]

Joseph Brimacombe, MB CHB FRCA MD^*, Tisha Stone, MB BS^* and Christian Keller, MD

^* From the Departments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, Cairns, Australia; and
The Leopold-Franzens University, Innsbruck, Austria.

Address correspondence to: Prof. J. Brimacombe, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, The Esplanade, Cairns 4870, Australia. E-mail: jbrimaco{at}bigpond.net.au

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that supplementary cleaning facilitates removal of protein deposits from the laryngeal mask airway (LMA).

Methods: Twenty previously used Classic^TM and Flexible^TM LMAs were hand washed, machine washed, dried, autoclaved and then randomly allocated into four groups for supplementary cleaning. In Group A, the dorsal surface was immersed in water and the surface scrubbed with a high-speed rotating brush. In Group B, the dorsal surface was immersed in a plaque removing solution. In Group C, the dorsal surface was immersed in a protein removing solution. In Group D (controls), the dorsal surface was immersed in water. Before and after supplementary cleaning the LMAs were immersed in a protein staining solution, rinsed and a high-resolution digital image taken of the dorsal surface. The location and severity of staining were scored by two observers blinded to group assignment.

Results: Staining was similar before and after supplementary cleaning for all groups. Mild, moderate and severe staining occurred in 31%, 7% and 2% of zones respectively; 60% were unstained. Staining was less common on the cuff than on the backplate and distal tube (both: P < 0.00001). Staining was less common on the backplate than on the distal tube (P = 0.001). Staining was always present on the mid-portion of the backplate or distal tube.

Conclusion: Supplementary cleaning using a rotating brush, plaque or protein removing solution does not facilitate removal of protein deposits from re-usable LMAs; however, the infectious risk associated with the protein deposits remains to be determined.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Lange, T. Smul, P. Zimmermann, R. Kohlenberger, N. Roewer, and F. Kehl The Effectiveness and Patient Comfort of the Novel Streamlined Pharynx Airway Liner (SLIPA(R)) Compared with the Conventional Laryngeal Mask Airway in Ophthalmic Surgery Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2007; 104(2): 431 - 434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]