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 Keller, C. Articles by von Goedecke, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Keller, C. Articles by von Goedecke, A.

In cadavers, directly measured mucosal pressures are similar for the Unique^TM and the Soft Seal^TM laryngeal mask airway devices

[Les pressions exercées sur les muqueuses par les masques laryngés Unique^TM et Soft Seal^TM, mesurées directement sur des cadavres, sont similaires]

Christian Keller, MD^*, Joseph Brimacombe, MB CHB FRCA MD, Bernhard Moriggl, MD, Philipp Lirk, MD^* and Achim von Goedecke, MD^*

^* From the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, and
the Institute of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Leopold-Franzens University, Innsbruck, Austria; and
the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, Cairns, Australia.

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

Purpose: We compare the Soft Seal^TM and Unique^TM single-use, plastic laryngeal mask airway devices with respect to intracuff pressure, directly measured mucosal pressure and in vitro elastance.

Methods: Ten fresh male cadavers were studied. Microchip pressure sensors were attached to the following locations: A) the anterior middle part of the cuff side; B) the posterior tip of the cuff; C) the anterior base of the cuff; D) the posterior middle part of the cuff side; E) the backplate; and F) the posterior tube. The size 5 Unique^TM and size 5 Soft Seal^TM were inserted in random order using laryngoscope-guidance. Intracuff pressure and mucosal pressure were documented at 0 to 40 mL cuff volume in 10 mL increments. In vitro elastance was determined between 20 to 40 mL cuff volume.

Results: For both devices, mucosal pressure increased with cuff volume at most locations. Intracuff pressures and in vitro elastance (5.2 ± 0.7 cm H₂O/mL vs 3.8 ± 0.4 cm H₂O/mL, P < 0.0001) were higher for the Unique^TM than the Soft Seal^TM (P < 0.0001), but there were no differences in mucosal pressures at any location or cuff volume.

Conclusion: Intracuff pressures and in vitro elastance are higher for the Unique^TM than the Soft Seal^TM, but mucosal pressures are similar suggesting that the airway morbidity will be similar.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Brimacombe and C. Keller The Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask Provides Good Ease of Insertion and Clinical Performance Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2005; 101(1): 298 - 298. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Al-Shaikh and A.A.J. Van Zundert The Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask Provides Good Ease of Insertion and Clinical Performance Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2005; 101(1): 297 - 298. [Full Text] [PDF]