Article

The new perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA) is as efficient as the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) but provides better airway sealing pressures.

Outcomes Research Institute, Louisville, Kentucky 40202, USA.
Anesthesia & Analgesia (Impact Factor: 3.3). 07/2004; 99(1):272-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.sa.0000171434.53477.73
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) is a frequently used efficient airway device, yet it sometimes seals poorly, thus reducing the efficacy of positive-pressure ventilation. The Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA) is a novel airway device with a larger pharyngeal cuff (when inflated). We tested the hypothesis that the CobraPLA was superior to the LMA with regard to insertion time and airway sealing pressure and comparable to the LMA in airway adequacy and recovery characteristics. After midazolam and fentanyl administration, 81 ASA physical status I-II outpatients having elective surgery were randomized to receive an LMA or CobraPLA. Anesthesia was induced with propofol (2.5 mg/kg IV), and the airway was inserted. We measured 1) insertion time; 2) adequacy of the airway (no leak at 15-cm-H2O peak pressure or tidal volume of 5 mL/kg); 3) airway sealing pressure; 4) number of repositioning attempts; and 5) sealing quality (no leak at tidal volume of 8 mL/kg). At the end of surgery, gastric insufflation, postoperative sore throat, dysphonia, and dysphagia were evaluated. Data were compared with unpaired Student's t-tests, chi2 tests, or Fisher's exact tests; P < 0.05 was significant. Patient characteristics, insertion times, airway adequacy, number of repositioning attempts, and recovery were similar in each group. Airway sealing pressure was significantly greater with CobraPLA (23 +/- 6 cm H2O) than LMA (18 +/- 5 cm H2O, P < 0.001). The CobraPLA has insertion characteristics similar to the LMA but better airway sealing capabilities.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
66 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: CobraPLUS and Cookgas air-Q are supraglottic airways expected to allow safe ventilation as well as reliable blind intubation. In a prospective, controlled trial, we hypothesised that quality of ventilation and success rate of blind endotracheal intubation of these new devices would be superior to the Fastrach intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA). When blind intubation failed the quality of fibrescope-guided intubation was investigated. To allow identification of those patients in whom blind intubation would be difficult, we investigated the predictive value of currently used predictors for ease of endotracheal intubation. One hundred and eighty adult patients with documented BMI, Mallampati score, Cormack-Lehane classification, interincisor gap and thyromental distance were randomised into three groups according to the device used. Ventilation conditions were rated as excellent, good or difficult. When blind intubation failed, fibrescope-guided intubation conditions were rated as well. Statistical analysis was performed by a χ-test. The quality of ventilation was excellent for all devices. Three patients in the CobraPLUS group and two patients in the ILMA and the Cookgas groups needed a slight reposition. Blind intubation through the CPLA was successful in 47%, through the Cookgas in 57%, whereas the Fastrach group had a success rate of 95%. Fibreoptic intubation was possible in all but one patient. None of the registered scores and measures allowed prediction of difficult blind intubation. All devices appeared to be safe airways. The Fastrach ILMA proved to be a reliable facilitator for blind intubation. CobraPLUS and Cookgas air-Q allowed an easy fibrescopic intubation. Failed blind intubations could not be predicted by the used parameters.
    European Journal of Anaesthesiology 03/2011; 28(3):181-6. · 2.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The development of the laryngeal mask airway in 1981 was an important first step toward widespread use and acceptance of the extraglottic airway (EGA). The term extraglottic is used in this review to encompass those airways that do not violate the larynx, in addition to those with a supraglottic position. Although the term extraglottic may be broad and include airways such as tracheostomy tubes, the term supraglottic does not describe a large number of devices with subglottic components and is too narrow for a discussion of modern devices. EGAs have flourished in practice, and now a wide variety of devices are available for an ever-expanding array of applications. In this review we attempt to clarify the current state of EGA devices new and old, and to illustrate their use in numerous settings. Particular attention is paid to the use of EGAs in special situations such as obstetric, pediatric, prehospital, and nontraditional "out of the operating room" settings. The role of the EGA in difficult airway management is discussed. EGA devices have saved countless lives because they facilitate ventilation when facemask ventilation and tracheal intubation were not possible. Traditionally, difficult airway management focused on successful tracheal intubation. The EGA has allowed a paradigm shift, changing the emphasis of difficult airway management from tracheal intubation to ventilation and oxygenation. EGA devices have proved to be useful adjuncts to tracheal intubation; in particular, the combination of EGA devices and fiberoptic guidance is a powerful technique for difficult airway management. Despite their utility, EGAs do have disadvantages. For example, they typically do not provide the same protection from pulmonary aspiration of regurgitated gastric material as a cuffed tracheal tube. The risk of aspiration of gastric contents persists despite advances in EGA design that have sought to address the issue. The association between excessive EGA cuff pressure and potential morbidity is becoming increasingly recognized. The widespread success and adoption of the EGA into clinical practice has revolutionized airway management and anesthetic care. Although the role of EGAs is well established, the user must know each device's particular strengths and limitations and understand that limited data are available for guidance until a new device has been well studied.
    Anesthesia and analgesia 12/2011; 114(2):349-68. · 3.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Supraglottic airway devices play an important role in ophthalmic surgery. The flexible laryngeal mask airway (LMA™) is generally the preferred airway device. However, there are no studies comparing it with the Cobra perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA™) in pediatric ophthalmic procedures. To analyze the intraoperative device stability and ability to maintain normocarbia of CobraPLA™ and compare it to that with flexible LMA™. Ninety children of American Society for Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2, aged 3-15 years scheduled for elective ophthalmic surgeries were randomly assigned to either the CobraPLA™ or the flexible LMA™ group. After placement of each airway device, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was noted. Adequate seal of the devices was confirmed at an inspired pressure of 15 cm H(2)O and pressure-controlled ventilation was initiated. Device displacement was diagnosed if there was a change in capnograph waveform, audible or palpable gas leak, change in expired tidal volume to <8 ml/kg, end-tidal carbon-dioxide persistently >6 kPa, or need to increase inspired pressure to >18 cm H(2)O to maintain normocarbia. Demographic data, duration, and type of surgery in both the groups were similar. A higher incidence of intraoperative device displacement was noted with the CobraPLA™ in comparison to flexible LMA™ (P < 0.001). Incidence of displacement was higher in strabismus surgery (7/12). Insertion characteristics and ventilation parameters were comparable. The OLP was significantly higher in CobraPLA™ group (28 ± 6.8 cm H(2)O) compared to the flexible LMA™ group (19.9 ± 4.5 cm H(2)O) (P < 0.001). Higher surgeon dissatisfaction (65.9%) was seen in the CobraPLA™ group. The high incidence of device displacement and surgeon dissatisfaction make CobraPLA™ a less favorable option than flexible LMA™ in ophthalmic surgery.
    Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology 07/2012; 28(3):322-5.

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
37 Downloads
Available from
May 31, 2014