الفهرس 
INTRODUCTION AND AIM OF THE WORKOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 150 |  |  |
| | | from | 150 | | |
Abstract
Aim of the work
To compare the efficacy of this new device to maintain airway patency, in comparison with tracheal intubation, in spontaneously breathing patients and to determine whether or not the LMA can be used as an alternative to the endotracheal tube. Also, we compared the pressor response associated with LMA insertion and tracheal intubation.
Summary
Post operative problems were minimal and most of the problems which a rised from use of the laryngeal mask were due to inadequate depth of anesthesia, not due to the LM itself e.g. coughing during insertion, laryngospasm and recurrent air swallowing leading to post operative vomiting. Incidence of sore throat following LMA insertion was significantly lower than after tracheal intubation.
Any how, use of the laryngeal mask as an alternative to tracheal intubation is more controversial. It can not reliably isolate the airway and does not guarantee against the risk of regurge or aspiration as does the cuffed tracheal tube. So, it is not recommended for use in patients who may have a full stomach. Controversy exists regarding its use to facilitate positive pressure ventilation (PPV) due to concern that gases under pressure may be forced into the stomach and predispose the patient to regurgitation. To avoid this complication during PPV, smaller tidal volumes and inflation pressures not higher than 25cm H2O should be used. So, the proper place of the LMA in anesthetic practice will depend on the proper selection of patients and proper use of it. Misuse of the LMA will lead to a reduction in benefit to patients.