Chest Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bryson, T.
Right arrow Articles by Ward, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bryson, T.
Right arrow Articles by Ward, C.

Chest, Vol 74, 537-539, Copyright © 1978 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

The esophageal obturator airway: a clinical comparison to ventilation with a mask and oropharyngeal airway

TK Bryson, JL Benumof and CF Ward

We compared controlled ventilation with the esophageal obturator airway to ventilation with a conventional rubber mask and oropharyngeal airway in ten anesthetized patients. Measurements of exhaled tidal volume, mask-to-face fit (leakage of mask), supraglottic obstruction, and the operator's effort were all inferior using the esophageal obturator airway. No consistent peak airway pressure could be obtained with the esophageal obturator airway. Placement of the device was difficult in three of ten patients, and two of ten had inadvertent tracheal intubations. Edentulous patients were difficult to impossible to ventilate using the esophageal obturator airway.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1978 by the American College of Chest Physicians.