Abstract:
This Cross-Over-Study compared LMA and COPA™ in 50 patients undergoing urological surgery. Adjusting manoeuvres to achieve adequate ventilation were counted. The position of both airways in the larynx was evaluated by fiberoptic laryngoscopy. Inspirational and expirational volumes and the resulting leakage was surveyed as well as the incidence of leakage or inflation sounds in the laryngeal and gastric area. The effects of increasing inflational pressures on the upper esophageal sphincter were evaluated fiberoptically only using COPA™. Using COPA™, significantly more adjusting manoeuvres were necessary to establish adequate ventilation. Comparing the two different airways by the different sizes available, there was no significant difference between LMA Size 4 and COPA™ Size 11, whereas LMA Size 5 needed significantly less adjusting manoeuvres than all other airways. The vocal chords could be seen in 90 % of all cases using LMA, but only in 35 % using COPA™. This may represent a higher rate of potential airway restriction when COPA™ is used. While no decrease in ventilation was detected clinically, this may indicate that both, COPA™ and LMA, can equalise anatomical incorrect placements. Using LMA, higher inspirational and expirational volumes as well as lower leakage volumes can be achieved. Both airways were airtight at a ventilation pressure of 10 cmH2O. Examination of the upper oesophageal sphincter was only performed when using COPA™. It could be shown fiberoptically that there was more gastric inflational noise in patients having an opening of the upper oesophageal sphincter. Both COPA™ and LMA are suitable for IPPV in patients with no increased risk for aspiration. Adequate ventilation volumes can be achieved with both airways and the incidence of gastric insufflation is low. Using LMA, significantly fewer adjusting manoeuvres are necessary to establish adequate ventilation and higher ventilation volumes can be achieved at any given ventilation pressure. An influence of the anatomical position of the airways on the quality of ventilation was not evident, because both airways can equalise suboptimal placement. Comparing both airways, the LMA, being well-established in the clinical routine for years, showed better results than COPA™, so that the necessity of the newer device is in doubt.