• Tom C R V Van Zundert, Jan F A Hendrickx, Jan L De Witte, David T Wong, Davide Cattano, and Joseph R Brimacombe.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Anesthesiology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwziekenhuis, Aalst, Belgium. Electronic address: tomvanzundert@icloud.com.
• J Clin Anesth. 2016 Jun 1; 31: 231-7.

Study ObjectiveThe study objective is to determine whether extraglottic airway devices (EADs) with or without mask aperture bars (MABs) result in similar anatomical positions in patients undergoing surgery.DesignProspective, randomized, crossover comparison of four extraglottic airway devices.SettingOperating theatre at a large teaching hospital.PatientsEighty consenting patients scheduled to undergo surgery with general anesthesia.InterventionsPatients were randomly allocated to receive anesthesia with one of four tested EADs. Two versions of each EAD were inserted in random order; one with and one without MABs.Measurements And Main ResultsEndoscopic evaluation did not demonstrate any difference between the EADs with or without MABs. Contact between MABs and arytenoids (n=15) and herniation of arytenoids (n=7) was restricted to the Cobra-group patients. In nine patients the epiglottis made contact with a MAB, although this contact was very limited and often unilateral.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that the anatomical position of the four tested single-use EADs is similar with or without mask aperture bars. We therefore question whether MABs have a protective role in prevention of airway occlusion and whether MABs are essential components. In the overall majority of EADs with MABs, the latter did not prevent contact with the epiglottis. Contact and herniation of the laryngeal structures are seen more frequently when more than two MABs are present.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…