van Vlymen J M, Fu W, White P F, Klein K W, Griffin J D
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 75235-9068, USA.
Anesthesiology. 1999 May;90(5):1306-10. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199905000-00014.
The cuffed oropharyngeal airway is a modified Guedel-type oral airway with a cuff at its distal end. The objectives of this study were to compare the ability of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway and the laryngeal mask airway to provide positive-pressure ventilation during general anesthesia, and to assess their relative ease of use and ability to reduce total fresh gas flow rates.
In this prospective, randomized study, a cuffed oropharyngeal airway (n = 25) or a laryngeal mask airway (n = 25) device was inserted after induction of anesthesia intravenously using 2 mg/kg propofol. While anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide, the leak pressure, leak fraction (the fractional difference between the inspired and expired tidal volume), minimum fresh gas flow rate, and need for airway manipulations were determined. The anesthesia provider who inserted the device completed an evaluation form at the end of the 15-min study period.
Positive-pressure ventilation was established successfully on the first attempt in 92% of the patients when the cuffed oropharyngeal airway was used and in 88% of the patients when the laryngeal mask airway device was used. However, manipulations of the airway device were necessary more frequently (8 vs. 1 patient; P < 0.05) and the leak pressure was less (22 +/- 6 cm water vs. 26 +/- 5 cm water; P < 0.05) with the cuffed oropharyngeal airway than with the laryngeal mask airway. In addition, the leak fraction (0.19 +/- 0.18 vs. 0.31 +/- 0.22; P < 0.05) and the minimum fresh gas flow rate (1.3 +/- 1.5 vs. 2.4 +/- 2.5; P = 0.12) were less in the laryngeal mask airway group.
Positive-pressure ventilation is possible with the laryngeal mask airway and cuffed oropharyngeal airway devices. Although the cuffed oropharyngeal airway can be inserted easily by inexperienced users with a high first-attempt success rate (> 90%), manipulations of the device may be required to maintain a patent airway. The laryngeal mask airway device allows positive-pressure ventilation at slightly greater peak inspiratory pressures.
带套囊的口咽气道是一种改良的古德尔型口咽气道,其远端带有一个套囊。本研究的目的是比较带套囊的口咽气道和喉罩气道在全身麻醉期间提供正压通气的能力,并评估它们的相对易用性以及降低总新鲜气体流速的能力。
在这项前瞻性随机研究中,静脉注射2mg/kg丙泊酚诱导麻醉后,插入带套囊的口咽气道(n = 25)或喉罩气道(n = 25)装置。在使用七氟烷和氧化亚氮维持麻醉期间,测定漏气压力、漏气分数(潮气量吸入与呼出的分数差值)、最低新鲜气体流速以及气道操作的必要性。插入装置的麻醉医生在15分钟研究期结束时完成一份评估表。
使用带套囊的口咽气道时,92%的患者首次尝试就成功建立了正压通气;使用喉罩气道装置时,这一比例为88%。然而,与喉罩气道相比,带套囊的口咽气道需要更频繁地进行气道装置操作(8例对1例;P < 0.05),且漏气压力更低(22±6cm水柱对26±5cm水柱;P < 0.05)。此外,喉罩气道组的漏气分数(0.19±0.18对0.31±0.22;P < 0.05)和最低新鲜气体流速(1.3±1.5对2.4±2.5;P = 0.12)更低。
喉罩气道和带套囊的口咽气道装置都可以进行正压通气。尽管带套囊的口咽气道可由经验不足的使用者轻松插入,首次尝试成功率较高(>90%),但可能需要对该装置进行操作以维持气道通畅。喉罩气道装置允许在稍高的吸气峰压下进行正压通气。