SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Garcia-Aguado R, Vinoles J, Brimacombe J, Vivo M, Lopez-Estudillo R, Ayala G. Suction catheter guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital technique. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 2006; 53: 398403.
  • 2
    Janakiraman C, Chethan DB, Wilkes AR, Stacey MR, Goodwin N. A randomised crossover trial comparing the i-gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 6748.
  • 3
    Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Kaiser D, et al. Crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask supreme and the i-gel in simulated difficult airway scenario in anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 2009; 111: 5562.
  • 4
    Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Keller C. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme – a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 7983.
  • 5
    Brimacombe J, Keller C, Giampalmo M, Sparr HJ, Berry A. Direct measurement of mucosal pressures exerted by cuff and non-cuff portions of tracheal tubes with different cuff volumes and head and neck positions. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1999; 82: 70811.
  • 6
    Keller C, Brimacombe J. Mucosal pressure and oropharyngeal leak pressure with the Proseal versus the classic laryngeal mask airway. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2000; 85: 2626.
  • 7
    Horisberger T, Gerber S, Bernet V, Weiss M. Measurement of tracheal wall pressure: a comparison of three different in vitro techniques. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 41822.
  • 8
    Brimacombe J, Keller C, Vosoba JuddD. Gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital and introducer tool techniques. Anesthesiology 2004; 100: 259.
  • 9
    Keller C, Brimacombe J, Keller K, Morris R. A comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1999; 82: 2867.
  • 10
    Sachs L. Der Kolmogoroff-Smirnov-Test für die Güte der Anpassung. Angewandte Statistik. Anwendung statistischer Methoden. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1992: 42630.
  • 11
    Keller C, Brimacombe J. Mucosal pressures from the cuffed oropharyngeal airway vs the laryngeal mask airway. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1999; 82: 9224.
  • 12
    Keller C, Brimacombe J. Pharyngeal mucosal pressures with the laryngeal tube airway versus ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesiologie Intensivmedizin Notfallmedizin Schmerztherapie 2003; 38: 3936.
  • 13
    Keller C, Brimacombe J. Pharyngeal mucosal pressures, airway sealing pressures and fiberoptic position with the intubating versus the standard laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 10016.
  • 14
    Keller C, Brimacombe J, Boehler M, Loeckinger A, Puehringer F. The influence of cuff volume and anatomic location on pharyngeal, esophageal and tracheal mucosal pressures with the esophageal tracheal combitube. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 10747.
  • 15
    Brimacombe J, Keller C, Puehringer F. Pharyngeal mucosal pressure and perfusion. A fiberoptic evaluation of the posterior pharynx in anesthetized adult patients with a modified cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 16615.
  • 16
    Brimacombe J, Keller C. Laryngeal mask airway size selection in males and females: ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, pharyngeal mucosal pressures and anatomical position. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1999; 82: 7037.
  • 17
    Keller C, Brimacombe J. Influence of neuromuscular block, mode of ventilation and respiratory cycle on pharyngeal mucosal pressures with the laryngeal mask airway. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1999; 83: 4802.