You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 120 No. 8, August 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Articles
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Laryngeal Mask Airway vs Face Mask and Guedel Airway During Pediatric Myringotomy

Mehernoor F. Watcha, MD; Fred T. Garner, MD; Paul F. White, PhD, MD, FFARAC; Rodney Lusk, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994;120(8):877-880.


Abstract

Objective
To compare perioperative conditions when a face mask and Guedel oral airway (FM-OA) or a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) are used to maintain airway patency during bilateral myringotomy with insertion of tympanostomy tubes (BMT).

Design
Randomized controlled trial in children's hospital tertiary-care operating rooms.

Participants
Fifty healthy children undergoing BMT procedures during halothane—nitrous oxide (N2O) anesthesia.

Interventions
During BMT we managed the airway by inserting a Guedel oral airway or an LMA.

Main Outcome Measures
We recorded the time taken to insert the airway device along with oxygen saturation during the operation and time from the end of surgery to eye opening, response to commands, and home readiness. In addition the surgeon assessed perioperative conditions on a 10-point scale (1, poor, through 10, excellent).

Results
Although insertion of the LMA took longer than the Guedel oral airway (mean±SD, 9±2 seconds vs 6±2 seconds; P<.05), no differences were noted in the actual operating, anesthesia, or recovery times. However, the frequency of hypoxemic episodes was decreased (8% vs 36%, P<.05) and the lowest recorded oxygen saturations were higher (mean±SD, 95%±7% vs 88%±12%; P<.05) in the LMA group than in the FM-OA group. Surgeons rated perioperative conditions better when the LMA was used (median score, 9 vs 8; P<.05).

Conclusion
The LMA is an excellent alternative to the FM-OA technique for airway maintenance in children undergoing BMT procedures during halothane—N2O anesthesia.

(Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994;120:877-880)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas (Drs Watcha and White); and the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo (Drs Garner and Lusk). Dr Garner was a fellow with the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis. Dr Garner is now with Midlands ENT PA, Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia, SC.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The laryngeal mask airway: potential applications in neonates
Trevisanuto et al.
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004;89:F485-F489.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1994 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.