van Zundert André, Al-Shaikh Baha, Brimacombe Joseph, Koster Jurgen, Koning Dick, Mortier Eric P
Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Catharina Hospital-Brabant Medical School, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Anesthesiology. 2006 Jun;104(6):1165-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200606000-00010.
The authors compared three disposable extraglottic airway devices in spontaneously breathing anesthetized adults: the LMA-Unique (LMA-U; The Laryngeal Mask Company, San Diego, CA), the Soft Seal laryngeal mask (SS-LM; Portex Ltd., Hythe, United Kingdom), and the Cobra perilaryngeal airway (Cobra-PLA; Engineered Medical Systems, Inc. Indianapolis, IN).
Three hundred twenty consecutive adults (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III; aged 18-80 yr) were randomly allocated for airway management with one of the three devices. Anesthesia was with fentanyl-propofol for induction and a sevoflurane-nitrous oxide-oxygen-fentanyl mixture for maintenance. Intraoperative data were collected by an unblinded observer about ease of insertion, effective airway time, oropharyngeal leak pressure, anatomical position (determined with a rigid endoscope), intracuff pressure changes, and airway trauma. Data were collected by a blinded observer about sore throat, dysphagia, and dysphonia 2 h after surgery.
Insertion was easier with the LMA-U and SS-LM than with the Cobra-PLA (P < 0.02), but the overall failure rates were similar. Effective airway times were similar among groups. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was lower with the LMA-U than with the SS-LM and Cobra-PLA (P < 0.001). Intracuff pressure increased during surgery with all extraglottic airway devices. Anatomical position was better with the Cobra-PLA than with the SS-LMA (P < 0.001) and better with the SS-LM than with LMA-U (P < 0.001). Blood staining was detected more frequently with the Cobra-PLA than with the LMA-U and SS-LM (P < 0.001), but there were no differences in airway morbidity.
The LMA-U and SS-LM are easier to insert and cause less trauma than the Cobra-PLA, but the Cobra-PLA has a more effective seal than the LMA-U and better endoscopically determined anatomical position than the LMA-U and SS-LM.
作者比较了三种一次性使用的声门外气道装置在自主呼吸的麻醉成年患者中的应用情况:LMA-Unique(LMA-U;喉罩公司,圣地亚哥,加利福尼亚州)、软密封喉罩(SS-LM;波特克斯有限公司,海斯,英国)和眼镜蛇喉周气道(Cobra-PLA;工程医疗系统公司,印第安纳波利斯,印第安纳州)。
连续320例成年患者(美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级I-III级;年龄18-80岁)被随机分配使用三种装置之一进行气道管理。麻醉诱导采用芬太尼-丙泊酚,维持采用七氟醚-氧化亚氮-氧气-芬太尼混合液。术中数据由未设盲的观察者收集,包括插入的难易程度、有效气道时间、口咽漏气压、解剖位置(用硬质内窥镜确定)、套囊内压力变化和气道损伤情况。术后2小时由设盲的观察者收集关于咽痛、吞咽困难和声音嘶哑的数据。
LMA-U和SS-LM的插入比Cobra-PLA更容易(P<0.02),但总体失败率相似。各组的有效气道时间相似。LMA-U的口咽漏气压低于SS-LM和Cobra-PLA(P<0.001)。所有声门外气道装置在手术过程中套囊内压力均升高。Cobra-PLA的解剖位置优于SS-LMA(P<0.001),SS-LM的解剖位置优于LMA-U(P<0.001)。Cobra-PLA的血染检出率高于LMA-U和SS-LM(P<0.001),但气道并发症无差异。
LMA-U和SS-LM比Cobra-PLA更容易插入且创伤更小,但Cobra-PLA的密封效果比LMA-U更有效,且在内窥镜下确定的解剖位置比LMA-U和SS-LM更好。