• Fatma Nur Kaya, Nermin Kelebek Girgin, Belgin Yavaşcaoğlu, Ferda Kahveci, and Gülsen Korfali.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Medicine Faculty of Uludağ University, 16059 Görükle, Bursa, Turkey. fnurk@uludag.edu.tr
• Ulus Travma Acil Cer. 2006 Oct 1;12(4):282-7.

BackgroundThe aim of our study is to compare the safety and efficiency of the use of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) with the use of endotracheal tube (ETT) for maintain patent airway during percutaneous tracheostomy (PCT).MethodsThe patients were randomly assigned to LMA group (n=35, M/F; 28/7, age; 52 [18-79]), COPA group (n=31, M/F; 23/8, age; 57 [18-80]) and ETT group (n=30, M/F; 22/8, age; 49 [18-80]) with respect to use of LMA, COPA and ETT in order to maintain patent airway during PCT procedure. PT was performed as described by Griggs et al. Complications occurred during and after PCT procedure and airway manipulations required to maintain a patent airway were recorded.ResultsDuration of PT was longer in the ETT group comparing with the other groups (for both groups; p<0.01). The LMA failed to maintain patent airway in 1 of 35 patients (2.9%) and the COPA failed to maintain patent airway in 3 of 31 patients (9.7%). The airway intervention required to maintain patent airway was found to be higher in the COPA group (45.2%) than in the LMA group (11.4%) (p<0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to the complications between the groups.ConclusionIn our study, LMA and COPA were inserted easily during PCT with high success rates, but airway manipulations were higher in the COPA group. In our opinion, supra/infraglottic airway devices to maintain patent airway during PCT should be chosen according to patient's status and physician's experience.

18 keywords...

hide…