LeBouef L L
Respir Care. 1980 Nov;25(11):1136-42.
Eight adult manual resuscitators were compared with regard to weight, dimensions, number of parts, possibility of misassembly, durability, self-reinflation time, average stroke volume with male and female operators using one hand and two hands, maximum cycling rate at room temperature and low temperature, delivered oxygen concentration, per cent demand ventilation, and ease of use. Of the devices tested, the Robertshaw and the Hudson Lifesaver had design problems in the oxygen delivery system, reducing the effective cycling rates. The Ohio Hope I delivered inadequate oxygen concentrations, and the Ohio Hope II delivered inadequate oxygen concentrations when used without a reservoir. The Hope II was also found awkward to use because of the bulky reservoir. The Puritan PMR delivered low oxygen concentrations and its valve required a screwdriver for disassembly and cleaning: a possible misassembly hazard was also noted. The Air-Shields Ambu Mark II, the Laerdal II, and the Penlon units rated high with respect to the tested variables, with the Penlon and Laerdal II devices achieving oxygen concentrations greater than 95%.
对八款成人手动复苏器在重量、尺寸、部件数量、误装可能性、耐用性、自动充气时间、男女操作者单手和双手操作时的平均潮气量、室温和低温下的最大循环率、输送氧浓度、按需通气百分比以及易用性等方面进行了比较。在所测试的设备中,罗伯特肖(Robertshaw)和哈德逊救生员(Hudson Lifesaver)的氧气输送系统存在设计问题,降低了有效循环率。俄亥俄希望一号(Ohio Hope I)输送的氧浓度不足,而俄亥俄希望二号(Ohio Hope II)在不使用储氧袋时输送的氧浓度也不足。还发现希望二号由于储氧袋体积庞大而使用不便。普瑞泰恩PMR(Puritan PMR)输送的氧浓度较低,其阀门拆卸和清洁需要螺丝刀:还注意到存在可能的误装风险。在测试变量方面,Air-Shields Ambu Mark II、Laerdal II和Penlon设备评分较高,Penlon和Laerdal II设备的氧浓度超过95%。