Skip to main content Accessibility help

Comparison of the anaesthetic requirement with target-controlled infusion of propofol to insert the laryngeal tube vs. the laryngeal mask

  • P. Richebé (a1), B. Rivalan (a1), L. Baudouin (a1), M. Sesay (a1), F. Sztark (a2), A.-M. Cros (a3) and P. Maurette (a1)...



Background and objective: The target effect-site concentration of propofol to insert a laryngeal mask airway was recently reported as almost 5 μg mL−1. The present study aimed to determine the target effect-site concentration with target-controlled infusion of propofol to place classical larnygeal mask airway or current laryngeal tube in adult patients. Methods: We included 40 patients scheduled for short gynaecological and radiological procedures under general anaesthesia in a randomized, double-blind manner using the Dixon's up-and-down statistical method. Monitoring included standard cardiorespiratory monitors, and bispectral index monitoring was used for all patients. Anaesthesia was conducted with a target-controlled infusion system: Diprifusor. The initial target plasma concentration of propofol was 5 μg mL−1, and was changed stepwise by 0.5 μg mL−1 increments according to Dixon's up-and-down method. Criteria for acceptable insertion were: Muzi's score ≤2, and mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate or bispectral index variation <20% the baseline values.Results: Target effect-site concentration of propofol required to insert laryngeal tube was 6.3 ± 0.3 μg mL−1 with Dixon method and ED50 was 6.1 μg mL−1 (5.9–6.4) with logistic regression method. In the case of larnygeal mask airway they were 7.3 ± 0.2 μg mL−1 (Dixon method) and 7.3 μg mL−1 (7.1–7.5; with logistic regression) respectively (P < 0.05). ED95 (logistic regression) was 6.8 μg mL−1 (5.9–7.6) for laryngeal tube and 7.7 μg mL−1 (7.3–8.0) for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05). Haemodynamic incidents were 55% in the larnygeal mask airway group vs. 30% in the laryngeal tube group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The target effect-site concentration of propofol for insertion of laryngeal tube was lower than for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05), with a consequent reduction of the propofol induced haemodynamic side-effects.


Corresponding author

Correspondence to: Philippe Richebé, Service du Pr Pierre Maurette, Département d'Anesthésie et Réanimation III, Hôpital Pellegrin, Place Amélie Raba Léon, CHU de Bordeaux, 33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France. E-mail:; Tel:+33 5 56 79 55 15; Fax:+33 5 57 57 14 12


Hide All


Dorges V, Ocker H, Wenzel V, Schmucker P. The laryngeal tube: a new simple airway device. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 12201222.
Asai T, Kawashima A, Hidaka I, Kawachi S. Laryngeal tube: its use for controlled ventilation. Masui 2001; 50: 13401341.
Brimacombe J. The advantages of the LMA over the tracheal tube or face mask: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 1995; 42: 10171023.
Brain AI, McGhee TD, McAteer EJ, Thomas A, Abu-Saad MA, Bushman JA. The laryngeal mask airway. Development and preliminary trials of a new type of airway. Anaesthesia 1985; 40: 356361.
Asai T, Murao K, Shingu K. Efficacy of the laryngeal tube during intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 10991102.
Gaitini LA, Vaida SJ, Somri M et al. An evaluation of the laryngeal tube during general anesthesia using mechanical ventilation. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 17501755.
Cook TM, McCormick B, Asai T. Randomized comparison of laryngeal tube with classic laryngeal mask airway for anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 373378.
Devitt J. The laryngeal mask airway and positive-pressure ventilation. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 550555.
Keller C, Sparr HJ, Brimacombe JR. Positive pressure ventilation with the laryngeal mask airway in non-paralysed patients: comparison of sevoflurane and propofol maintenance techniques. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 332336.
Danks RR, Danks B. Laryngeal mask airway: review of indications and use. J Emerg Nurs 2004; 30: 3035.
Agro F, Cataldo R, Alfano A, Galli B. A new prototype for airway management in an emergency: the laryngeal tube. Resuscitation 1999; 41: 284286.
Asai T. Use of the laryngeal tube (R) in a patient with an unstable neck. Can J Anaesth 2002; 49: 642643.
Asai T, Hidaka I, Kawachi S. Efficacy of the laryngeal tube by inexperienced personnel. Resuscitation 2002; 55: 171175.
Asai T, Kawashima A, Hidaka I, Kawachi S. The laryngeal tube compared with the laryngeal mask: insertion, gas leak pressure and gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 729732.
Asai T, Shingu K. Use of the laryngeal tube during emergence from anaesthesia in a patient with an unstable neck. Anaesthesia 2004; 59: 300301.
Asai T, Moriyama S, Nishita Y, Kawachi S. Use of the laryngeal tube during cardiopulmonary resuscitation by paramedical staff. Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 393394.
Wrobel M, Grundmann U, Wilhelm W, Wagner S, Larsen R. Laryngeal tube versus laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetised non-paralysed patients. A comparison of handling and postoperative morbidity. Anaesthesist 2004; 53: 702708.
Gaitini LA, Vaida SJ, Somri M, Yanovski B, Ben-David B, Hagberg CA. A randomized controlled trial comparing the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the laryngeal tube suction in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesthesiology 2004; 101: 316320.
Casati A, Fanelli G, Casaletti E, Cedrati V, Veglia F, Torri G. The target plasma concentration of propofol required to place laryngeal mask versus cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 917920.
Muzi M, Robinson BJ, Ebert TJ, O'Brien TJ. Induction of anesthesia and tracheal intubation with sevoflurane in adults. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 536543.
Dixon WJ. Staircase bioassay: the up-and-down method. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1991; 15: 4750.
Dixon W. Quantal-response variable experimentation: the up-and-down method. In: McArthur JW, Colton T, eds. Statistics in Endocrinology. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press, 1967.
Woods AW, Grant S, Harten J, Noble JS, Davidson JA. Tracheal intubating conditions after induction with propofol, remifentanil and lignocaine. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1998; 15: 714718.
Brown GW, Patel N, Ellis FR. Comparison of propofol and thiopentone for laryngeal mask insertion. Anaesthesia 1991; 46: 771772.
Kodaka M, Okamoto Y, Koyama K, Miyao H. Predicted values of propofol EC50 and sevoflurane concentration for insertion of laryngeal mask Classic and ProSeal. Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 242245.
Martin G, Breslin DS, MacLeod DB et al. A study of anesthetic drug utilization in different age groups. J Clin Anaesth 2003; 15: 194200.
Ouattara A, Boccara G, Lemaire S et al. Target-controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil in cardiac anaesthesia: influence of age on predicted effect-site concentrations. Br J Anaesth 2003; 90: 617622.
Kazama T, Takeuchi K, Ikeda K et al. Optimal propofol plasma concentration during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in young, middle-aged, and elderly patients. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 662669.
Shafer A, Shafer SL, White PF. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol infusions during general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1988; 69: 348356.


Comparison of the anaesthetic requirement with target-controlled infusion of propofol to insert the laryngeal tube vs. the laryngeal mask

  • P. Richebé (a1), B. Rivalan (a1), L. Baudouin (a1), M. Sesay (a1), F. Sztark (a2), A.-M. Cros (a3) and P. Maurette (a1)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed