Engelhardt Thomas, Johnston Graham, Kumar Manisha M
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital, Aberdeen, UK.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2006 Feb;16(2):140-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01709.x.
The use of low flow circle systems necessitates a 'leak free' breathing system which is commonly achieved by using a cuffed tracheal tube (TT). We hypothesized that low flow circle system anesthesia can equally effectively be achieved by using the LMA in pediatric anesthesia.
Following local ethics committee approval we randomly recruited 45 patients scheduled for elective surgery and requiring mechanical ventilation into three groups (cuffed TT, uncuffed TT and LMA group, n = 15). The size of the TT was determined by means of the formula (age/4) + 4.5 for uncuffed and (age/4) + 4 for cuffed TT whereas the size of the LMA size was dependent on weight. Following induction of anesthesia and muscle paralysis patients were ventilated with pressure controlled ventilation through a pediatric circle system and the lowest fresh gas flow (FGF) determined.
The FGF achieved were (median and range) 0.20 (0.2-0.25) l.min(-1) for the LMA group, 0.20 (0.2-0.4) l.min(-1) for the cuffed TT group and 1.15 (0.2-4.75) l.min(-1) for the uncuffed group. The differences between the LMA and cuffed TT compared with the uncuffed TT were significant (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0002, respectively). The difference in FGF between LMA and cuffed TT was not significant.
We conclude that pressure controlled ventilation using an LMA is an alternative to a cuffed TT during low flow circle system anesthesia in children. Low FGF is unlikely to be achieved consistently using an uncuffed TT because of a substantial leak.
低流量循环系统的使用需要一个“无泄漏”的呼吸回路,这通常通过使用带套囊的气管导管(TT)来实现。我们假设在小儿麻醉中使用喉罩(LMA)同样能有效地实现低流量循环系统麻醉。
经当地伦理委员会批准后,我们随机招募了45例计划接受择期手术且需要机械通气的患者,分为三组(带套囊TT组、不带套囊TT组和LMA组,每组n = 15)。不带套囊TT的尺寸根据公式(年龄/4)+ 4.5确定,带套囊TT的尺寸根据公式(年龄/4)+ 4确定,而LMA的尺寸则取决于体重。麻醉诱导和肌肉松弛后,通过小儿循环系统对患者进行压力控制通气,并确定最低新鲜气体流量(FGF)。
LMA组达到的FGF为(中位数和范围)0.20(0.2 - 0.25)l.min⁻¹,带套囊TT组为0.20(0.2 - 0.4)l.min⁻¹,不带套囊组为1.15(0.2 - 4.75)l.min⁻¹。与不带套囊TT组相比,LMA组和带套囊TT组之间的差异具有统计学意义(分别为P < 0.0001和P = 0.0002)。LMA组和带套囊TT组之间的FGF差异无统计学意义。
我们得出结论,在小儿低流量循环系统麻醉期间,使用LMA进行压力控制通气可替代带套囊的TT。由于大量漏气,使用不带套囊的TT不太可能持续实现低FGF。