Ezri T, Ady N, Szmuk P, Glanz L, Shklar B, Katz J, Geva D
Department of Anesthesiology, Kaplan Hospital, Rehovot, Israel.
Can J Anaesth. 1999 Apr;46(4):363-7. doi: 10.1007/BF03013229.
This study was designed to compare the new cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) to the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in elderly patients.
In a randomized, controlled study, 80 patients, age > or = 65, ASA I-III, undergoing urology procedures, were managed with either COPA or LMA. Propofol requirements for insertion of the devices, ease of insertion and removal, airway manipulations, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, P(ET)CO2, SpO2, peak inspiratory pressure, selection of the appropriate size of the device and leaks, fibreoptic visualization of larynx and complications were studied.
There were more airway manipulations in the COPA group than in the LMA group (40% and 5% respectively) whereas P(ET)CO2 was higher in the LMA group (P < 0.05). In 60% of COPA patients the vocal cords could not be visualized but ventilation was adequate in all but two cases. Postoperative sore throat occurred in 20% of patients with LMA vs 10% with COPA). Bloody secretions on the device were present in two patients managed with LMA.
In elderly patients COPA required more airway manipulations than the LMA. Laryngeal mask airway caused more sore throats, but was better for fibreoptic visualisation of the larynx. Both are excellent options when intubation is not indicated/desired.
本研究旨在比较新型带套囊口咽气道(COPA)与喉罩气道(LMA)在老年患者中的应用情况。
在一项随机对照研究中,80例年龄≥65岁、美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级为I - III级、接受泌尿外科手术的患者,分别采用COPA或LMA进行管理。研究了插入设备时丙泊酚的需求量、插入和移除的难易程度、气道操作、平均动脉压、心率、呼气末二氧化碳分压(P(ET)CO2)、血氧饱和度(SpO2)、吸气峰压、设备合适尺寸的选择和漏气情况、喉镜光纤可视化以及并发症。
COPA组的气道操作比LMA组更多(分别为40%和5%),而LMA组的P(ET)CO2更高(P < 0.05)。在60%的COPA患者中无法看到声带,但除两例外所有患者通气均充足。LMA患者术后咽痛发生率为20%,而COPA患者为10%。使用LMA管理的两名患者设备上出现血性分泌物。
在老年患者中,COPA比LMA需要更多的气道操作。喉罩气道导致更多咽痛,但对喉镜光纤可视化更好。当不适合/不需要插管时,两者都是很好的选择。