Brimacombe Joseph, Keller Christian, Judd Dana Vosoba
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, and James Cook University, Cairns, Australia.
Anesthesiology. 2004 Jan;100(1):25-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200401000-00008.
The authors compare three techniques for insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway.
Two hundred forty healthy patients aged 18-80 yr were randomly allocated for ProSeal laryngeal mask airway insertion using the digital, introducer tool (IT), or gum elastic bougie (GEB)-guided techniques. The digital and IT techniques were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. The GEB-guided technique involved priming the drain tube with the GEB, placing the GEB in the esophagus under direct vision, and inserting the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway using the digital technique with the GEB as a guide. Failed insertion was defined by any of the following criteria: (1) failed pharyngeal placement; (2) malposition (air leaks, negative tap test results, or failed gastric tube insertion if pharyngeal placement was successful); and (3) ineffective ventilation (maximum expired tidal volume < 8 ml/kg or end-tidal carbon dioxide > 45 mmHg if correctly positioned). Any visible or occult blood was noted. Sore throat, dysphonia, and dysphagia were assessed 18-24 h postoperatively.
Insertion was more frequently successful with the GEB-guided technique at the first attempt (GEB, 100%; digital, 88%; IT, 84%; both P < 0.001), but success after three attempts was similar (GEB, 100%; digital, 99%; IT, 98%). The time taken to successful placement was similar among groups at the first attempt but was shorter for the GEB-technique after three attempts (GEB, 25 +/- 14 s; digital, 33 +/- 19 s; IT, 37 +/- 25 s; both: P < 0.003). There were no differences in the frequency of visible blood, but occult blood occurred less frequently with the GEB-guided technique (GEB, 12%; digital, 29%; IT, 31%; both: P < 0.02) but was similar among techniques if insertion was successful at the first attempt. There were no differences in postoperative airway morbidity. CONCLUSION The GEB-guided insertion technique is more frequently successful than the digital or IT techniques. The authors suggest that the GEB-guided technique may be a useful backup technique for when the digital and IT techniques fail.
作者比较了三种插入ProSeal喉罩气道的技术。
240例年龄在18 - 80岁的健康患者被随机分配,分别采用手指引导、导入器工具(IT)或弹性树胶探条(GEB)引导技术插入ProSeal喉罩气道。手指引导和IT技术按照制造商的说明进行。GEB引导技术包括用GEB给引流管充液,在直视下将GEB放入食管,并以GEB为引导采用手指引导技术插入ProSeal喉罩气道。插入失败定义为符合以下任何一条标准:(1)咽部放置失败;(2)位置不当(漏气、负压测试结果为阴性,或咽部放置成功但胃管插入失败);(3)通气无效(正确放置时最大呼出潮气量<8 ml/kg或呼气末二氧化碳>45 mmHg)。记录任何可见或隐匿性出血情况。术后18 - 24小时评估咽痛、声音嘶哑和吞咽困难情况。
首次尝试时,GEB引导技术插入成功率更高(GEB,100%;手指引导,88%;IT,84%;P均<0.001),但三次尝试后的成功率相似(GEB,100%;手指引导,99%;IT,98%)。首次尝试时各组成功放置所需时间相似,但三次尝试后GEB技术所需时间更短(GEB,25±14秒;手指引导,33±19秒;IT,37±25秒;P均<0.003)。可见性出血频率无差异,但GEB引导技术隐匿性出血发生频率较低(GEB,12%;手指引导,29%;IT,31%;P均<0.02),但如果首次尝试插入成功,各技术之间隐匿性出血情况相似。术后气道并发症无差异。结论:GEB引导插入技术比手指引导或IT技术成功率更高。作者认为,当手指引导和IT技术失败时,GEB引导技术可能是一种有用的备用技术。