Hanning S J, McCulloch T J, Orr B, Anderson S P
Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006 Apr;34(2):237-9. doi: 10.1177/0310057X0603400210.
We tested the oropharyngeal leak pressure with the reusable laryngeal mask airway and the single-use Soft Seal laryngeal mask airway. These two types of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) have a similar design but the reusable LMA cuff is made from silicone whereas the Soft Seal LMA cuff is polyvinylchloride. Thirty-five healthy subjects were anaesthetized and paralyzed and the two types of Soft Seal LMA were compared in a blinded randomized cross-over trial. The oropharyngeal leak pressure was significantly higher with the Soft Seal than the reuable (21 +/- 7.6 and 16 +/- 6.7 cm H2O respectively, P = 0.002). However, in four subjects the oropharyngeal leak pressure was higher with the reusable by > 4 cm H2O. We concluded that the reusable LMA may provide a better seal in some individuals but that, on average, the Soft Seal provides a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than the reusable LMA.
我们使用可重复使用的喉罩气道和一次性使用的软密封喉罩气道测试了口咽漏气压。这两种类型的喉罩气道（LMA）设计相似，但可重复使用的LMA套囊由硅胶制成，而软密封LMA套囊是聚氯乙烯材质。35名健康受试者接受麻醉并被麻痹，在一项双盲随机交叉试验中对这两种软密封LMA进行了比较。软密封LMA的口咽漏气压显著高于可重复使用的LMA（分别为21±7.6和16±6.7 cm H₂O，P = 0.002）。然而，在4名受试者中，可重复使用的LMA口咽漏气压高出4 cm H₂O以上。我们得出结论，可重复使用的LMA在某些个体中可能提供更好的密封，但平均而言，软密封LMA比可重复使用的LMA提供更高的口咽漏气压。
