Briseño-Medina C, Delgado-Hernández E, Castellanos-Olivares A

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 97-100
PDF size: 57.18 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In 2001, the ProSeal laryngeal mask was introduced into the clinical practice. Its basic structure is similar to the classical laryngeal mask, but its principal modification is the property to separate the respiratory tract from the gastrointestinal tract. It presents a successful placing at the first attempt in the 85% of the cases. Methods: It was analyzed the information from 100 ASA 1, 2 and 3 patients, ranging from 18 to 82 years old, programmed for laparoscopic surgery. The ProSeal laryngeal mask (PLMA) was used as the device for the airway. Results: The patients were divided into a 52% of women and a 48% of men, with an average age of 45 years old (ranging from 18 to 82 years old) and with an average weight of 68 kg (with a range between 50 and 92 kg). The peak (airway) pressure in pneumoperitoneum was of 22 cm H₂O (ranging from 19 to 28 cm H₂O). Neither leaks nor problems were observed in ventilation. Conclusion: The ProSeal laryngeal mask is a secure device in laparoscopic surgery, since it keeps the peak pressure within normal limits, making patient’s ventilation secure and diminishing the incidence of pulmonary aspiration due to the gastric draining tube.

REFERENCES

1. Brain AIJ, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA ‘ProSeal’ – a laryngeal mask with an esophageal vent. Br J Anaesth 2000;84:650-654.

2. Cook TM, Gibbison B. Analysis of 1,000 consecutive uses of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway by one anaesthesist at a district general hospital. Br J Anaesth 2007;99:436-439.

3. Lu PP, Brimacombe J, Yang C, Shyr M. ProSeal versus the Classic laryngeal mask airway for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth 2002;88:824-827.

4. Cook TM, Nolan JP, Verghese C, Strube PJ, Lees M, Millar JM, Baskett PJF. Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSeal with the classic laryngeal mask airway in unparalyzed anaesthetized patients. Br J Anaesth 2002;88:527-533.

5. Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anesth 2005;52:739-760.

6. Brimacombe J, Clarke G, Keller C. Lingual nerve injury associated with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a case report and review of the literature. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:420-423.

7. Kihara S, Brimacombe J. Sex-based ProSeal laryngeal mask airway size selection: A randomized crossover study of anesthetized, paralyzed male and female adult patients. Anesth Analg 2003;97:280-284.

8. Natalini G, Franceschetti ME, Pantelidi MT, Rosano A, Lanza G, Bernardini A. Comparison of the standard laryngeal mask airway and the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in obese patients. Br J Anaesth 2003;90;323-326.

9. Shimbori H, Ono K, Miwa T, Morimura N, Noguchi M, Hiroki K. Comparison of the LMA-ProSeal and LMA-Classic in children. Br J Anaesth 2004;93:528-531.