English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

UNLABELLEDWe conducted a randomized, cross-over study of 20 paralyzed anesthetized adult patients to test the hypothesis that oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position (assessed fiberoptically) vary with head and neck position for the flexible (FLMA) and standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA). Both devices were inserted into each patient in random order. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic position (including degree of rotation) were documented in four head and neck positions (neutral first, then flexion, then extension and rotation in random order) for each device. The size 5 was used for all patients, and the intracuff pressure was set at 60 cm H2O in the neutral position. All airway devices were inserted at the first attempt. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was similar for the FLMA and LMA in the neutral (22 vs 21 cm H2O), flexed (26 vs 26 cm H2O), and extended positions (19 vs 18 cm H2O) but was slightly higher for the LMA when the head was rotated (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.04). Compared with the neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressure for the LMA was higher with flexion (26 vs 21 cm H2O; P = 0.0004) and lower with extension (18 vs 21 cm H2O; P = 0.03) but similar with rotation. Compared with the neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressure for the FLMA was higher with flexion (26 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.0001) and lower with extension (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.03) and rotation (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.03). The difference in oropharyngeal leak pressure between flexion and extension was 7 and 8 cm H2O for the FLMA and LMA, respectively. Fiberoptic position was similar between devices and was unchanged by head and neck position. Rotation was not detected fiberoptically. We conclude that there are small changes in oropharyngeal leak pressure but no changes in cuff position in different head and neck positions for the FLMA and LMA. Oropharyngeal leak pressure may be improved by head and neck flexion and by avoiding extension.IMPLICATIONSThere are small changes in oropharyngeal leak pressure but no changes in cuff position in different head and neck positions for the flexible and standard laryngeal mask airways. Oropharyngeal leak pressure may be improved by head and neck flexion and by avoiding extension.

The Influence of Head and Neck Position on Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure and Cuff Position with the Flexible and the Standard Laryngeal Mask Airway