Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Correspondence

Efficacy of the laryngeal tube

Miller, D. M.; Pearce, A. C.

Author Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology: April 2002 - Volume 19 - Issue 4 - p 306

A Reply

EDITOR:

Thank you for the opportunity to reply to Dr Asai's comments to our paper [1]. His observations were based on his experience with the more recent Type 2 laryngeal tube [2], whereas we were investigating an earlier version (Type 1). Furthermore, his experiences, and the studies he refers to, are limited to its use in controlled ventilation only and our investigation relates to its use in spontaneous respiration. We feel, therefore, that his comments about our report based on his experience are not strictly relevant. We look forward to his next paper using the newer version of the laryngeal tube in spontaneous respiration. With his greater experience with the laryngeal tube and with the use of a more recent improved version, we would expect a vastly improved result. Nevertheless, our experience with version one makes us rather sceptical about whether the results will be comparable with the use of a laryngeal mask airway in spontaneous ventilation.

D. M. Miller

A. C. Pearce

Guy's, King's and St Thomas' Hospitals School of Medicine; Department of Anaesthetics; London, UK

References

1. Miller DM, Youkhana I, Pearce AC. The laryngeal mask and VBM laryngeal tube compared during spontaneous ventilation. A pilot study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001; 18: 593-598.
2. Asai T, Murao K, Shingu K. Efficacy of the laryngeal tube during intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 1099-1102.
© 2002 European Academy of Anaesthesiology