Use of the laryngeal mask airway in the ambulatory setting

Randomized Evaluation of the Single-use SoftSeal™ and the Re-useable LMA Classic™ Laryngeal Mask

A number of laryngeal masks are available, including both re-usable and single-use masks. Single-use laryngeal masks may decrease the risk of transmitting prion infections. We performed a single-blind randomized trial in 200 spontaneously breathing female patients under general anaesthesia with nitrous oxide, to compare a new single-use laryngeal mask, the SoftSeal™ (Portex Ltd, U.K.), with a re-usable laryngeal mask, the LMA Classic™ (Laryngeal Mask Company Ltd., Cyprus). The primary outcome was successful insertion at the first attempt. Size 4 single-use (n=99) or re-usable (n=100) laryngeal masks, inserted by experienced anaesthetists, were equivalent for successful placement at the first attempt (90% versus 91% respectively). The single-use mask was less easy to insert (47% difficult versus 9%, P<0.001). Clinical and anatomical tests of position and function were similar. The cuff pressure of the re-usable mask increased significantly compared with the single-use mask (median +10 cm versus –2 cm H 2 O, P<0.001). Forty per cent of patients allocated the single-use mask and 20% of those allocated the re-usable mask experienced sore throat at 24 hours postoperatively (P<0.05). An estimation of cost per patient use was greater for the re-usable mask.

We conclude that the SoftSeal™ single-use laryngeal mask and the LMA Classic™ re-usable laryngeal mask airway are of similar clinical utility in terms of successful insertion and airway maintenance. The re-usable laryngeal mask was easier to insert and associated with less postoperative sore throat, but costs were higher.

Preoperative, anesthetic, and postoperative care for rhinoplasty patients

The perioperative period can be anxiety provoking for rhinoplasty patients. Patients rely on the skill and confidence of the surgeon to attain optimal results. Having an established strategy for the preoperative, anesthetic, and postoperative care of this patient population is critical to achieving a successful outcome and to ensuring a positive experience for the patient. Establishing a sincere rapport in the preoperative period and being able to properly address patient concerns regarding anesthesia helps patients develop a positive frame of mind and aids in their recovery. This presentation reviews important elements of the preoperative, anesthetic, and postoperative care of rhinoplasty patients and provides insight to making the experience a positive one for the patient and the surgeon.

The ProSeal??? Has a Shorter Life-Span than the Classic??? Laryngeal Mask Airway

We tested the hypothesis that the life-span of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is shorter than the Classic LMA. We also compared residual cuff volumes and changes in elastance and permeability with use. Six new size 4 ProSeal LMAs and 6 new size 4 Classic LMAs were tested. Each LMA underwent a simulated clinical use cycle until it failed the pre-use check tests. The simulated clinical use cycle comprised: i) inflating the cuff to the maximum recommended volume for 1 h; ii) immersion in an enzymatic solution for 3 min; iii) washing the external and internal surfaces; iv) automatic washing for 14 min (< or =85 degrees C); v) drying for 30 min (< or =75 degrees C); and vi) autoclaving at 134 degrees C for 4 min at 206 kPa. Before the first cycle and every 10 subsequent cycles, the cuff was inflated with 40 mL air and the intracuff pressure was measured immediately and 3 h later. The initial intracuff pressure was taken to be an inverse measure of the elastance or resistance to deformation, and the intracuff pressure change were taken as a measure of the permeability. The residual cuff volume was determined for 10 Classic and 10 ProSeal size 4 LMAs using a gas dilution technique. The mean +/- sd (range) longevity for the ProSeal LMA and Classic LMA was 82 +/- 23 (45-109) uses and 133 +/- 35 (76-176) uses, respectively. The ProSeal LMA has a shorter life-span than the Classic LMA (P = 0.01). For the ProSeal LMA, there was no change in elastance or permeability with use. For the Classic LMA, there was a decrease in elastance (P < 0.0001) and an increase in permeability (P < 0.0001) with use. The residual cuff volume was higher for the ProSeal LMA (2.6 +/- 1.3 mL versus 1.5 +/- 0.9, P = 0.04). We conclude that the life-span of the ProSeal LMA is shorter than the Classic LMA, but both exceed the manufacturer's recommendations of 40 uses. We recommend that reusable LMA devices be discarded when they fail the pre-use check tests, rather than after a specific number of uses.

Microbiological, microstructure, and material science examinations of reprocessed Combitubes after multiple reuse

Reprocessing (repeated cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization) and reuse of single-use medical devices has been performed safely with some devices. The aim of our study was to analyze whether reprocessing of the Combitubes (Kendall-Sheridan, Argyll, NY) airway device, used for emergency endotracheal intubation and difficult airway management, is possible and can be performed appropriately and safely. Microbiological, microstructure, and material science examinations were performed with unused, as well as multiple reused and reprocessed Combitubes. The reprocessing procedure consisted of a cleaning, a disinfection, a final inspection, and a sterilization. Microbiological examinations of multiple reused and reprocessed Combitubes found no test organisms in quantitative cultures. A microbial reduction between four and five log levels compared with nonreprocessed tubes was found. Microstructure analysis for the examination of topographical alterations and changes in the chemical composition of the surface demonstrated nonsignificant alterations between new and reprocessed medical devices. In material science examinations, cuff burst pressures were not different between unused and multiple reprocessed Combitubes. The results of all examinations proved that the decontamination process is adequately effective, and that no significant superficial alterations are generated by the multiple reuse and reprocessing of the Combitubes. To assure uniformly good results, a quality management system must be established and only validated methods should be used.

IMPLICATIONS

Reprocessing of single-use medical devices offers the opportunity of significant savings and is already performed with some devices. Microbiological, microstructure, and material science examinations proved that reprocessing of multiple reused Combitubes (Kendall-Sheridan, Argyll, NY), mainly used for emergency airway management, is possible and safe.