Bordes M, Semjen F, Meymat Y, Zaghet B, Suriray I, Cros A-M
Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation IV, Hôpital Pellegrin-Enfants, CHU de Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux-II, Place Amélie-Raba-Léon, 33076 Bordeaux cedex, France.
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2006 Aug;25(8):806-10. doi: 10.1016/j.annfar.2006.03.007. Epub 2006 May 3.
To compare the Classic laryngeal mask airway (MLC) and the ProSeal LMA (MLP), size 2 and 2.5 in terms of ease of insertion, leak pressure and side effects during insertion and extraction in the recovery room.
Randomised prospective.
All children between 10 and 30 kg scheduled for general anaesthesia with laryngeal mask (ML) were included. There was no imposed protocol for the anaesthesia. The ML size was determined according to the child's weight. The MLC was inserted using the standard technique. The MLP was inserted following the recommendations, with or without the handle according to the operator's choice. The data analysed were: insertion type, ease of insertion of the mask, of the nasogastric tube (SG), number of attempts of mask insertion, complications, gastric leaks.
One hundred (and) twenty children were included. There was no statistical difference in terms of difficulty of insertion, number of failed attempts, leak pressure or side effects. The use of the handle did not make insertion easier. Insertion of a nasogastric tube was possible in 92% cases.
MLP is as easy to use in children as the MLC. MLP has the advantage of allowing rapid access to the stomach. It seems that the MLP is safer since its correct position is confirmed by easy gastric tube insertion.
比较2号和2.5号经典喉罩气道（MLC）和双管喉罩（MLP）在恢复室插入的难易程度、漏气压力以及插入和拔出过程中的副作用。
随机前瞻性研究。
纳入所有计划使用喉罩（ML）进行全身麻醉的10至30千克儿童。麻醉未设特定方案。根据儿童体重确定ML尺寸。MLC采用标准技术插入。MLP根据推荐插入，操作人员可根据选择决定是否使用手柄。分析的数据包括：插入类型、面罩插入的难易程度、鼻胃管（SG）插入情况、面罩插入尝试次数、并发症、胃漏气情况。
纳入120名儿童。在插入难度、失败尝试次数、漏气压力或副作用方面无统计学差异。使用手柄并未使插入更容易。92%的病例能够插入鼻胃管。
MLP在儿童中使用起来与MLC一样容易。MLP具有可快速进入胃部的优势。由于通过鼻胃管易于插入可确认其正确位置，MLP似乎更安全。
