Suppr超能文献

常规外科手术中喉罩与喉管的比较。

A comparison of the laryngeal tube with the laryngeal mask airway during routine surgical procedures.

作者信息

Ocker Hartmut, Wenzel Volker, Schmucker Peter, Steinfath Markus, Dörges Volker

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Lübeck, Germany.

出版信息

Anesth Analg. 2002 Oct;95(4):1094-7, table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200210000-00057.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

The laryngeal mask airway (LMA; Laryngeal Mask Company, Henley-on-Thames, UK) is an established airway device, whereas the laryngeal tube (LT) is relatively new and therefore not as well investigated. Therefore, the purpose of the present prospective, randomized, controlled trial was to compare the LT with the LMA in routine clinical practice. In 50 patients undergoing general anesthesia for minor routine surgery, standardized anesthesia was induced and maintained with alfentanil and propofol. Patients were randomized to controlled ventilation (fraction of inspired oxygen = 0.4; fraction of inspired nitrous oxide = 0.6; tidal volume = 7 mL/kg; respiratory rate = 10 breaths/min) with the LT (n = 25) or the LMA (n = 25). Oxygen saturation was recorded before the induction of anesthesia and after the administration of oxygen. After 2 and 10 min of ventilation with the LT or LMA, oxygen saturation, end-expiratory carbon dioxide, expiratory tidal volume, and peak airway pressure were recorded. Capillary blood gas samples were taken before the induction of anesthesia and after 10 min of ventilation. Time of insertion and airway leak pressure of each device were measured. The time of insertion was comparable with both devices (LT versus LMA, median 21 s versus 19 s; P = not significant). Blood gas samples and ventilation variables revealed sufficient ventilation and oxygenation with either device (P = not significant). Peak airway pressure (LT, 17 +/- 3 cm H(2)O; LMA, 15 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) and airway leak pressure (LT, 36 +/- 3 cm H(2)O; LMA, 22 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) were significantly (P < 0.05) higher when using the LT compared with the LMA. In conclusion, using the LT and LMA resulted in comparable ventilation and oxygenation variables in this model of ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing routine surgical procedures. The newly developed LT may be a simple alternative device to secure the airway.

IMPLICATIONS

The laryngeal tube, a newly developed airway device, and the laryngeal mask airway were used to ventilate patients in the operating room. Both airway devices proved to be effective and safe; however, the laryngeal tube allowed greater airway pressure during ventilation.

摘要

未加说明

喉罩气道(LMA;英国泰晤士河畔亨利镇的喉罩公司)是一种成熟的气道装置,而喉管(LT)相对较新,因此研究较少。因此,本前瞻性、随机、对照试验的目的是在常规临床实践中比较LT和LMA。在50例接受小型常规手术全身麻醉的患者中,使用阿芬太尼和丙泊酚诱导并维持标准化麻醉。患者被随机分为使用LT(n = 25)或LMA(n = 25)进行控制通气(吸入氧分数 = 0.4;吸入氧化亚氮分数 = 0.6;潮气量 = 7 mL/kg;呼吸频率 = 10次/分钟)。记录麻醉诱导前和吸氧后的血氧饱和度。在使用LT或LMA通气2分钟和10分钟后,记录血氧饱和度、呼气末二氧化碳、呼气潮气量和气道峰压。在麻醉诱导前和通气10分钟后采集毛细血管血气样本。测量每个装置的插入时间和气道漏气压力。两种装置的插入时间相当(LT对LMA,中位数21秒对19秒;P = 无显著性差异)。血气样本和通气变量显示两种装置均能提供足够的通气和氧合(P = 无显著性差异)。与LMA相比,使用LT时气道峰压(LT,17±3 cm H₂O;LMA,15±3 cm H₂O)和气道漏气压力(LT,36±3 cm H₂O;LMA,22±3 cm H₂O)显著更高(P < 0.05)。总之,在本ASA身体状况I和II级接受常规手术的患者模型中,使用LT和LMA产生了相当的通气和氧合变量。新开发的LT可能是一种简单的替代装置,用于确保气道安全。

启示

喉管是一种新开发的气道装置,与喉罩气道一起用于手术室患者的通气。两种气道装置均被证明有效且安全;然而,喉管在通气期间允许更高的气道压力。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验