A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Randomised comparison of the Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway with the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway during anaesthesia in spontaneously breathing adult patients. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compared the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (PLA) and the Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) for airway leakage pressure in adult patients.
  • The results showed that the PLA had a higher leakage pressure (22 cmH2O) and a lower intracuff pressure (36.1 mmHg) compared to the LMA (18 cmH2O and 86.3 mmHg).
  • Although the PLA provided a better seal at a lower pressure, it took longer to insert successfully (39 seconds) compared to the LMA (27 seconds).

Article Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (PLA) with its high volume low-pressure cuff would provide superior airway leakage pressure compared with the Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) in spontaneously breathing adult patients. Ninety consecutive adult patients were randomly allocated to receive one of these two supralaryngeal devices. The airway leakage pressure was higher for the PLA compared with the LMA (22 +/- 9 cmH2O vs. 18 +/- 6 cmH2O; P < 0.05). The mean airway device intracuff pressure was lower for the PLA compared to the LMA (36.1 +/- 15.2 mmHg vs. 86.3 +/- 25.3 mmHg P < 0.0001). The time required to achieve successful insertion was greater for the PLA compared with the LMA (39 +/- 21 seconds vs. 27 +/- 10 seconds; P < 0.005). The number of attempts required to achieve successful insertion and the incidence of postoperative complications were similar in both groups. The findings suggest that the PLA provides a superior airway seal at a lower intracuff pressure compared to the LMA. However the time for successful insertion may be increased.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0310057X0903700107DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

compared lma
16
adult patients
12
pla compared
12
successful insertion
12
classic laryngeal
8
laryngeal mask
8
airway
8
mask airway
8
cobra perilaryngeal
8
perilaryngeal airway
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!