Trevisanuto Daniele, Ferrarese Paola, Zanardo Vincenzo, Chiandetti Lino
Department of Paediatrics, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 3, 35158 Padova, Italy.
Resuscitation. 2004 Mar;60(3):291-6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.11.001.
To survey current practice and to compare the opinion of paediatricians and anaesthesiologists regarding laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in neonatal resuscitation.
A structured postal questionnaire on the use of the laryngeal mask airway in neonatal resuscitation was sent to the heads of department of the paediatric and anaesthesiology services.
Forty-three hospitals in the Veneto Region, Italy.
During the year 2000, 1526 out of 33708 (4.5%) neonates in our region needed resuscitation. Of these cases, 101 (6.6%) were ventilated using the LMA. Laryngeal mask airway availability was significantly greater in the anaesthesiology department compared to the paediatric department (90% versus 50%; P = 0.002). However, 52% of anaesthesiologists and 72% of paediatricians had never used the laryngeal mask airway in their practice. The laryngeal mask airway was considered as an essential device more frequently by the anaesthesiologists than by the paediatricians (27% versus 5%; P = 0.015); both groups considered the laryngeal mask airway particularly useful in specific situations. Interestingly, while 16% of the paediatricians described the laryngeal mask airway as having no value, none of the anaesthesiologists did (P = 0.002). Staff competence was considered low by 70% of anaesthesiology heads of department compared with 90% of their pediatric colleagues. In both specialties, use of the laryngeal mask airway was limited to medical staff. With regard to training, 35% of anaesthesiologists and 22.5% of paediatricians had attended a course on laryngeal mask airway use.
Laryngeal mask airway availability and perceived value were higher amongst anaesthesiologists than their paediatric colleagues. However, educational level, competence and utilization rates of the LMA in neonatal resuscitation were low in both groups.
调查当前的做法，并比较儿科医生和麻醉医生对新生儿复苏中喉罩气道（LMA）的看法。
向儿科和麻醉科服务部门负责人发送了一份关于新生儿复苏中喉罩气道使用情况的结构化邮政问卷。
意大利威尼托地区的43家医院。
2000年期间，我们地区33708名新生儿中有1526名（4.5%）需要复苏。在这些病例中，101例（6.6%）使用喉罩气道进行通气。与儿科部门相比，麻醉科的喉罩气道配备率显著更高（90%对50%；P = 0.002）。然而，52%的麻醉医生和72%的儿科医生在实际工作中从未使用过喉罩气道。麻醉医生比儿科医生更频繁地将喉罩气道视为一种必不可少的设备（27%对5%；P = 0.015）；两组都认为喉罩气道在特定情况下特别有用。有趣的是，虽然16%的儿科医生认为喉罩气道没有价值，但没有一位麻醉医生这样认为（P = 0.002）。70%的麻醉科主任认为工作人员的能力较低，而他们的儿科同事中有90%这样认为。在这两个专业中，喉罩气道的使用仅限于医务人员。关于培训，35%的麻醉医生和22.5%的儿科医生参加过喉罩气道使用课程。
麻醉医生中喉罩气道的配备率和认知价值高于儿科医生同事。然而，两组在新生儿复苏中喉罩气道的教育水平、能力和使用率都很低。
