Ben-Abraham Ron, Weinbroum Avi A
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Am J Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;22(1):24-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2003.09.006.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rates of successful airway control using endotracheal tubes (ETs) or laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) and compare them between anesthetists and non-anesthetists wearing full antichemical protective gear. Anesthetists and non-anesthetists (n = 10 per group) twice attempted inserting ETs and LMAs on a mannequin model of airway management in a crossover, prospective manner. Times to successful insertion and failure rates were recorded. Non-anesthetists had a slightly higher failure rate inserting ETs compared with anesthetists (P = not significant). Respective mean times to successfully inserting ETs were 38 +/- 7.1 and 26.4 +/- 7.5 seconds (P < .05). Both groups inserted LMAs more rapidly than ETs (P < .05) and their failure rates in ET use were higher. In view of the relative rapidity by which LMAs were inserted as compared with ETs, by fully protected caregivers, the incorporation of LMA in algorithms dealing with emergency airway management in a nonconventional mass casualty scenario deserves further evaluation.
本研究的目的是评估使用气管内导管（ET）或喉罩气道（LMA）实现气道控制的成功率，并比较穿着全套防化防护服的麻醉医生和非麻醉医生之间的差异。麻醉医生和非麻醉医生（每组10人）以交叉、前瞻性的方式在气道管理人体模型上两次尝试插入ET和LMA。记录成功插入的时间和失败率。与麻醉医生相比，非麻醉医生插入ET的失败率略高（P = 无显著性差异）。成功插入ET的平均时间分别为38±7.1秒和26.4±7.5秒（P < 0.05）。两组插入LMA的速度均比插入ET更快（P < 0.05），且他们使用ET的失败率更高。鉴于与ET相比，LMA由完全防护的护理人员插入的速度相对较快，在非常规大规模伤亡场景中处理紧急气道管理的算法中纳入LMA值得进一步评估。
