• Zeev Goldik, Jacob Bornstein, Arieh Eden, and Ron Ben-Abraham.
• Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, and The Rappaport School of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel. goldikzeev@clalit.org.il
• Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002 Mar 1;19(3):166-9.

Background And ObjectiveTo evaluate the ease with which successful insertion of a laryngeal mask airway can be performed in comparison with endotracheal intubation by medical personnel wearing chemical protective equipment.MethodsAnaesthetists and non-anaesthetists (each n = 20) participated in the prospective comparative trial in an animal laboratory. The time and success rates of laryngeal mask airway vs. endotracheal tube insertions were measured as performed on anaesthetized monkeys.ResultsThe results showed that the laryngeal mask airway was inserted more rapidly than the endotracheal tube by both groups (3.6 s and 28.6 s, P < 0.0001). Failed intubation occurred in 35% (anaesthetists) vs. 55% (non-anaesthetists) (P = 0.17).ConclusionsIn view of the 100% success rate of insertion even in unfavourable conditions, the possible role of the laryngeal mask airway in the scenario of a toxic mass casualty event should be considered.

11 keywords...

hide…