[Laryngeal tube versus laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetised non-paralysed patientsA comparison of handling and postoperative morbidity].

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the classical laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with the laryngeal tube (LT) in anaesthetised non-paralysed patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients scheduled for minor elective surgery were included. After standardised induction and maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil, patients were randomly allocated to receive either a LMA or LT; muscle relaxants were not applied. Selection of the appropriate size and the initial inflation volume were chosen according to the manufacturers instructions. Ease of insertion, initial intra-cuff pressure, oropharyngeal leak pressure at an intra-cuff pressure of 60 cm H(2)O and incidence and severity of complications during and after anaesthesia were compared.

RESULTS: The LT was inserted significantly quicker than the LMA (35.1+/-15.9 s vs. 56.6+/-42.5 s; mean+/-SD). Insertion of the LT was successful within 1 attempt in 90% and within 2 or 3 attempts in another 4% of patients for the LT compared with 68% and 20% of patients for the LMA, respectively. For the LT the initial cuff pressure was significantly lower (75.1+/-16.2 cm H(2)O) and the oropharyngeal leak pressure after adjustment of the intra-cuff pressure to 60 cm H(2)O was significantly higher (27.2+/-6.9 mbar) compared with the LMA (109.5+/-25.7 cm H(2)O and 19.9+/-4.0 mbar, respectively). Incidence of postoperative laryngeal complications in the LT group (31%) was lower compared with the LMA group (54%).

CONCLUSION: In anaesthetised non-paralysed patients the LT compares favourably to the LMA in terms of ease of insertion and postoperative morbidity.