Suppr超能文献

在自主呼吸麻醉中,带套囊口咽通气道与喉罩气道的比较。

Comparison of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway and laryngeal mask airway in spontaneous breathing anesthesia.

作者信息

Hsu Y W, Pan M H, Huang C J, Cheng C R, Wu K H, Wei T T, Chen C T

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.

出版信息

Acta Anaesthesiol Sin. 1998 Dec;36(4):187-92.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) is a modified Guedel airway with a cuff at its distal end and a standard 15 mm connector at its proximal end. This study was performed to determine if the COPA would offer any advantage over the laryngeal mask airway (LMA).

METHODS

Eighty ASA class I to II adult patients scheduled for short elective procedures (less than 1 h) were randomly allocated into two groups. All patients were given atropine 0.01 mg/kg, fentanyl 2 micrograms/kg and propofol 2 mg/kg intravenously for induction of anesthesia. The COPA or LMA was inserted following the loss of eyelash reflex. If the jaw was not relaxed enough for insertion of a COPA or LMA, succinylcholine 1 mg/kg was given to facilitate the insertion. When correctly positioned, the cuff was immediately inflated with an appropriate volume. Gentle positive pressure ventilation was applied before spontaneous breathing resumed. Capnography was used to assess the patency of the airway. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane-N2O-O2 until the end of surgery. The success rate, vital signs, and adverse events were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

The success rate in the LMA group (95%) was higher than the COPA group (85%). The increase in circulatory response after the LMA insertion was greater than that after the COPA insertion (P < 0.05). Nine patients (22.5%) in the LMA group needed succinylcholine to facilitate insertion compared with only two patients (5%) in the COPA group. Additional manipulation was frequently (57.5%) needed after inserting the COPA to maintain the patency of the airways, but none needed so in the LMA group. Two patients had laryngospasms upon removal of the LMA, but none had laryngospasm in the COPA group. The incidence of sore throat in the LMA group was higher than in the COPA group (18% vs. 10%).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that the COPA could be easily inserted without the need of muscle relaxants in most patients. But the COPA needed airway intervention to provide an effective airway in most patients. Compared with the LMA, the COPA caused less stimulation than the LMA.

摘要

背景

带套囊口咽通气道(COPA)是一种改良的 Guedel 通气道,其远端有一个套囊,近端有一个标准的 15 毫米连接器。本研究旨在确定 COPA 相对于喉罩气道(LMA)是否具有任何优势。

方法

80 例计划进行短择期手术(小于 1 小时)的美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)I 至 II 级成年患者被随机分为两组。所有患者静脉注射阿托品 0.01 毫克/千克、芬太尼 2 微克/千克和丙泊酚 2 毫克/千克以诱导麻醉。在睫毛反射消失后插入 COPA 或 LMA。如果下颌松弛程度不足以插入 COPA 或 LMA,则给予琥珀酰胆碱 1 毫克/千克以促进插入。正确放置后,立即用适当体积的气体使套囊充气。在自主呼吸恢复前进行轻柔的正压通气。使用二氧化碳描记法评估气道通畅情况。使用异氟烷 - 氧化亚氮 - 氧气维持麻醉直至手术结束。对成功率、生命体征和不良事件进行评估和比较。

结果

LMA 组的成功率(95%)高于 COPA 组(85%)。插入 LMA 后循环反应的增加大于插入 COPA 后(P < 0.05)。LMA 组中有 9 例患者(22.5%)需要琥珀酰胆碱来促进插入,而 COPA 组中只有 2 例患者(5%)需要。插入 COPA 后经常(57.5%)需要额外操作以维持气道通畅,但 LMA 组无需如此。两名患者在拔除 LMA 时发生喉痉挛,但 COPA 组无患者发生喉痉挛。LMA 组咽痛的发生率高于 COPA 组(18%对 10%)。

结论

我们证明,在大多数患者中,无需肌肉松弛剂即可轻松插入 COPA。但在大多数患者中,COPA 需要气道干预以提供有效的气道。与 LMA 相比,COPA 引起的刺激比 LMA 少。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验