• C Keller and J Brimacombe.
• Klinik für Anästhesie und Allgemeine Intensivmedizin, Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Osterreich. christian.keller@uibk.ac.at
• Anaesthesist. 2001 Mar 1; 50 (3): 187-91.

AbstractOver the last 10 years, the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) has gained widespread acceptance as a general purpose airway for routine anaesthesia. Published data from large studies and reports have confirmed the safety and efficacy of the device for spontaneous and controlled ventilation during routine use. The initial experience with the LMA should ideally be confined to short cases requiring the patient to remain spontaneously ventilating. With experience, it will be found that less anesthetic agent is required during anesthesia with the LMA and patient recovery should be improved as a result. Spontaneous breathing is the chosen mode of ventilation in approximately 60% of LMA uses in the UK. During spontaneous breathing a minimal inspiratory pressure support will help with higher endtidal carbon dioxide levels. The anaesthetist should be experienced with using the LMA in spontaneously ventilating patients before using it with positive pressure ventilation. Several large scale studies have failed to show any link between positive pressure ventilation and pulmonary aspiration or gastric insufflation. The main disadvantage of the LMA is that it does not protect against aspiration. From a practical point of view, most fasted patients with normal lung compliance may be mechanically ventilated through the LMA to airway pressures of approximately 20 cmH2O. The low pressure seal implies that tidal volumes should be approximately 6-8 ml*kg-1 and the inspiratory flow rates should be reduced to achieve adequate and safe ventilation.

7 keywords...

hide…