Share this article on:

Cuffed oropharyngeal airway as a suitable alternative to the laryngeal mask airway for minor outpatient surgery

Yavaşcaoğlu, B.*; Acar, H. V.; Kahveci, Ş. F.*; Kaya, F. N.*; Özcan, B.*

European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA): March 2002 - Volume 19 - Issue 3 - p 203-207
Original Article

Background and objective: To compare the application of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway and the laryngeal mask airway on anaesthetized adult patients undergoing minor outpatient surgery.

Methods: One hundred patients received intravenous fentanyl, propofol and N2O for the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: a cuffed oropharyngeal airway group (n = 50) and a laryngeal mask airway group (n = 50). After insertion of the device, fibreoptic laryngoscopy was attempted and the degree of success scored. We then compared the first application success rate of both procedures while judging airway intervention requirement, fibreoptic scores, adverse airway events and haemodynamic tolerance.

Results: Both devices had an almost similar first-time placement rate (cuffed oropharyngeal airway 84% versus laryngeal mask airway 96%). The cuffed oropharyngeal airway required a higher number of airway interventions (P < 0.001). The laryngeal mask airway had a significantly better fibreoptic view compared with the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (P < 0.001). However, the number of adverse airway events was lower in the cuffed oropharyngeal airway group; there were no significant differences in adverse events and haemodynamic variables between the said two groups.

Conclusions: The results suggest that the cuffed oropharyngeal airway was an effective alternative airway in spontaneously breathing patients during short procedures.

*Uludağ University Medical School, Department of Anaesthesiology, Bursa, Turkey; Army Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Bursa, Turkey

Correspondence to: Belgin Yavaşcaoğlu. E-mail:; Tel: +90 224 4428039; Fax: +90 224 4428958

Accepted for publication May 2001 EJA 481

© 2002 European Academy of Anaesthesiology