• B Yavaşcaoğlu, H V Acar, S F Kahveci, F N Kaya, and B Ozcan.
• Uludağ University Medical School, Department of Anaesthesiology, Bursa, Turkey. ici@uludag.edu.tr
• Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002 Mar 1;19(3):203-7.

Background And ObjectiveTo compare the application of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway and the laryngeal mask airway on anaesthetized adult patients undergoing minor outpatient surgery.MethodsOne hundred patients received intravenous fentanyl, propofol and N20 for the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: a cuffed oropharyngeal airway group (n = 50) and a laryngeal mask airway group (n = 50). After insertion of the device, fibreoptic laryngoscopy was attempted and the degree of success scored. We then compared the first application success rate of both procedures while judging airway intervention requirement, fibreoptic scores, adverse airway events and haemodynamic tolerance.ResultsBoth devices had an almost similar first-time placement rate (cuffed oropharyngeal airway 84% versus laryngeal mask airway 96%). The cuffed oropharyngeal airway required a higher number of airway interventions (P < 0.001). The laryngeal mask airway had a significantly better fibreoptic view compared with the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (P < 0.001). However, the number of adverse airway events was lower in the cuffed oropharyngeal airway group; there were no significant differences in adverse events and haemodynamic variables between the said two groups.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the cuffed oropharyngeal airway was an effective alternative airway in spontaneously breathing patients during short procedures.

26 keywords...

hide…