• Anaesthesia · Sep 1993

    Comparative Study

    Evaluation of three portable suction devices.

    • E J Simon, J A Davidson, and S J Boom.
    • Department of Anaesthesia, Western Infirmary, Glasgow.
    • Anaesthesia. 1993 Sep 1;48(9):807-9.

    AbstractThree portable suction devices were evaluated and compared with a wall-mounted vacuum driven suction unit. The Repro-med Res-Q-Vac, the Dräger Sujector 2000 and the Laerdal suction unit were assessed by measuring the time taken to aspirate 140 ml of mock gastric contents. The respective times for each device, expressed as mean and (range) were 7.39 (4.3-10.4), 8.6 (7.8-9.4) and 11.4 (9.4-12.6) s. These compare favourable with the Ohmeda suction unit (7.27 (6.2-8.9)). Each type of device has advantages and disadvantages when factors such as size, power supply and portability are considered, and each will be the most suitable for a particular situation.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…