• Christian Keller, Joseph Brimacombe, Bernhard Moriggl, Philipp Lirk, and Achim von Goedecke.
• Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, The Esplanade, Cairns 4870, Australia.
• Can J Anaesth. 2004 Oct 1;51(8):834-7.

PurposeWe compare the Soft Seal and Unique single-use, plastic laryngeal mask airway devices with respect to intracuff pressure, directly measured mucosal pressure and in vitro elastance.MethodsTen fresh male cadavers were studied. Microchip pressure sensors were attached to the following locations: A) the anterior middle part of the cuff side; B) the posterior tip of the cuff; C) the anterior base of the cuff; D) the posterior middle part of the cuff side; E) the backplate; and F) the posterior tube. The size 5 Unique and size 5 Soft Seal were inserted in random order using laryngoscope-guidance. Intracuff pressure and mucosal pressure were documented at 0 to 40 mL cuff volume in 10 mL increments. In vitro elastance was determined between 20 to 40 mL cuff volume.ResultsFor both devices, mucosal pressure increased with cuff volume at most locations. Intracuff pressures and in vitro elastance (5.2 +/- 0.7 cm H(2)O/mL vs 3.8 +/- 0.4 cm H(2)O/mL, P < 0.0001) were higher for the Unique than the Soft Seal (P < 0.0001), but there were no differences in mucosal pressures at any location or cuff volume.ConclusionIntracuff pressures and in vitro elastance are higher for the Unique than the Soft Seal, but mucosal pressures are similar suggesting that the airway morbidity will be similar.

16 keywords...

hide…