American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 3 , Pages 263-267, March 2007

The laryngeal tube device: a simple and timely adjunct to airway management

  • Christopher S. Russi, DO

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
  • ,
  • Cari L. Wilcox, BA

      Affiliations

    • Roy J. & Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, IA 52242, USA
  • ,
  • Hans R. House, MD, DTMH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA

Received 2 December 2005; received in revised form 17 March 2006; accepted 18 March 2006.

Abstract 

Introduction

Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a motor skill that demands practice. Emergency medical service providers with limited intubation experience should consider using airway adjuncts other than ETI for respiratory compromise. Prehospital ETI has been recently interrogated by evidence exposing worsened patient outcomes. The laryngeal tube (LT) airway was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2003 for use in the United States. Using difficult airway-simulated models, we sought to describe the time difference between placing the ETI and LT and the successful placement of each adjunct in varied levels of healthcare providers.

Methods

Emergency medicine resident physicians, fourth year medical students, and paramedic students were asked to use both ETI and the LT. Subjects were timed (seconds) on ETI and LT placement on 2 different simulators (AirMan and SimMan; Laerdal Co, Wappingers Falls, NY). After ETI was complete, they were given 30 seconds to review an instructional card before placement of the LT. We measured placement time and successful placement of the device for ETI vs LT. Successful placement in the manikin was defined by a combination of breath sounds, chest rise, and absence of epigastric sounds.

Results

Overall mean placement time in the AirMan and SimMan for ETI was 76.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.3-89.5) and 45.9 (95% CI, 41.0-50.2) seconds, respectively. Mean placement time for the LT in the AirMan and SimMan was 26.9 (95% CI, 24.3-29.5) and 20.3 (95% CI, 18.1-22.5) seconds, respectively. The time difference between ETI and LT for both simulators was significant (P < .0001). Successful placement of the LT compared with ETI in the AirMan was significant (P = .001).

Conclusions

A significant time difference and simplicity exists in placing the LT, making it an attractive device for expeditious airway management. Further studies will need to validate the LT effectiveness in ventilation and oxygenation; however, its uncomplicated design allows for successful use by a variety of healthcare providers.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Presented at the October 2005 SAEM Midwestern Regional Meeting, Detroit, Mich.

PII: S0735-6757(06)00105-7

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2006.03.018

American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 3 , Pages 263-267, March 2007