4.6 Article

Laryngeal resistance before and after minor surgery -: Endotracheal tube versus Laryngeal Mask Airway™

Journal

ANESTHESIOLOGY
Volume 99, Issue 2, Pages 252-258

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200308000-00005

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The placement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) may promote laryngeal swelling, which is an important cause of upper airway obstruction after extubation. The authors hypothesized that laryngeal swelling after ETT placement increases laryngeal resistance and tested that hypothesis by comparing postoperative laryngeal patency between patients with ETT placement and those with a Laryngeal Mask Airway(TM) (LMA(TM)). Methods: Fourteen adult patients who underwent elective minor surgeries were randomly allocated to two groups whose airway would be managed through ETTs (the ETT group) or LMAs(TM) (the LMA(TM) group) during the surgery. While maintaining at sevoflurane I minimum alveolar concentration, the authors measured laryngeal resistance before and after surgery, during both spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation under complete paralysis. in addition, they endoscopically measured the vocal cord angle under complete paralysis. Results: In association with marked swelling of the vocal cords, the vocal cord angle significantly decreased after surgery in the ETT group, whereas the angle did not change in the LMA group. Laryngeal resistance during mechanical ventilation significantly increased only in the ETT group. Laryngeal resistance during spontaneous breathing significantly increased after surgeries in both groups. Conclusions: Postoperative laryngeal resistance increases at least in part because of laryngeal swelling in patients with ETT placement, whereas alteration of laryngeal neural control mechanisms has been also indicated. The use of the LMA(TM) has an advantage over ETT placement in order to avoid postoperative laryngeal swelling.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available