Users Online: 705 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 

RSACP wishes to inform that it shall be discontinuing the dispatch of print copy of JOACP to it's Life members. The print copy of JOACP will be posted only to those life members who send us a written confirmation for continuation of print copy.
Kindly email your affirmation for print copies to [email protected] preferably by 30th June 2019.

Year : 2012  |  Volume : 28  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 322-325

Comparison of Cobra perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA TM ) with flexible laryngeal mask airway in terms of device stability and ventilation characteristics in pediatric ophthalmic surgery

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Rajendra Prasad Institute of Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Renu Sinha
S-2, First Floor O.P.D. Block, R.P. Center, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110029
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.98324

Rights and Permissions

Background: Supraglottic airway devices play an important role in ophthalmic surgery. The flexible laryngeal mask airway (LMA TM ) is generally the preferred airway device. However, there are no studies comparing it with the Cobra perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA TM ) in pediatric ophthalmic procedures. Aims: To analyze the intraoperative device stability and ability to maintain normocarbia of CobraPLA TM and compare it to that with flexible LMA TM . Materials and Methods: Ninety children of American Society for Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2, aged 3-15 years scheduled for elective ophthalmic surgeries were randomly assigned to either the CobraPLA TM or the flexible LMA TM group. After placement of each airway device, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was noted. Adequate seal of the devices was confirmed at an inspired pressure of 15 cm H 2 O and pressure-controlled ventilation was initiated. Device displacement was diagnosed if there was a change in capnograph waveform, audible or palpable gas leak, change in expired tidal volume to <8 ml/kg, end-tidal carbon-dioxide persistently >6 kPa, or need to increase inspired pressure to >18 cm H 2 O to maintain normocarbia. Results: Demographic data, duration, and type of surgery in both the groups were similar. A higher incidence of intraoperative device displacement was noted with the CobraPLA TM in comparison to flexible LMA TM (P < 0.001). Incidence of displacement was higher in strabismus surgery (7/12). Insertion characteristics and ventilation parameters were comparable. The OLP was significantly higher in CobraPLA TM group (28 ± 6.8 cm H 2 O) compared to the flexible LMA TM group (19.9 ± 4.5 cm H 2 O) (P < 0.001). Higher surgeon dissatisfaction (65.9%) was seen in the CobraPLA TM group. Conclusion: The high incidence of device displacement and surgeon dissatisfaction make CobraPLA TM a less favorable option than flexible LMA TM in ophthalmic surgery.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded395    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal