CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Related articles in CJA
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jolly, D. T.
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jolly, D. T.
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, D.
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 51:746 (2004)
© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, 2004

Correspondence

REPLY

Donald T. Jolly, MD FRCP, Armando Escalona, RRT and Donna Clarke, RRT

Edmonton, Alberta

Since its introduction into Canada in 1990, the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has established itself as an indispensable part of daily clinical practice. In spite of the manufacturer’s recommendation that a LMA be retired after 40 uses, we have original LMAs that are still in service (admittedly, a practice better avoided than observed).1 Surprisingly, there are few reports of product failure or damage.2

The ProSealTM LMA was introduced in 2000. The cleaning brush for this product became available in late 2003. However, even a robust and resilient device such as the ProSealTM LMA can be irreparably damaged if it is not handled appropriately and with care.

We were pleased to review the report from Stix et al. This letter prompted us to examine all of the LMA products used in our department (n = 160) and review their cleaning procedures. None of our ProSealTM LMAs (n = 40) had been damaged in the manner described by Stix et al. Of interest, the technique used to clean the ProSealTM LMAs in our two facilities is similar. Our staff uses three different types of bristle brushes. One of these brushes is identical to the one pictured in the photograph submitted by Stix et al. Consequently, this brush is no longer used to clean our ProSealTM LMAs.

The letter from W. G. Stewart is interesting. We attributed the wrinkling of the ProSealTM LMA back cuff to aging, but as W. G. Stewart correctly points out, it is probably secondary to improper sterilization procedures.

The importance of sharing information after the discovery of problems has been under-emphasized. When colleagues are alerted to such problems, not only is the investment in the product protected, but patient safety is optimized.

References

1 Wong DT, McGuire GP. Fractured laryngeal mask airway (LMA). (Letter). Can J Anesth 2000; 47: 716.[Free Full Text]

2 Brimacombe JR. Problems with the laryngeal mask airway: prevention and management. Int Anesthesiol Clin 1998; 36: 139–54.[Medline]


Related articles in CJA:

More on the destruction of the ProSealTM LMA
Michael S. Stix, Cornelius J. O'Connor, Jr, and Dennis R. Valade
CJA 2004 51: 744-745. [Full Text]  

More on the destruction of the ProSealTM LMA
William G. Stewart
CJA 2004 51: 745-746. [Full Text]  




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Related articles in CJA
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jolly, D. T.
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jolly, D. T.
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, D.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS