一次性使用的安比（Ambu）AuraOnce喉罩与可重复使用的LMA Classic喉罩气道的比较。
A comparison of the disposable Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask with the reusable LMA Classic laryngeal mask airway.
作者信息
Sudhir G, Redfern D, Hall J E, Wilkes A R, Cann C
机构信息
Department of Anaesthestics and Intensive Care Medicine, Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK.
出版信息
Anaesthesia. 2007 Jul;62(7):719-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05067.x.
Single-use supraglottic airway devices are now available and are intended to be comparable with the reusable LMA Classic laryngeal mask airway. We performed a randomised cross-over study comparing the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask with the LMA Classic. Fifty patients participated in the trial. Success rates for insertion at the first attempt were similar (92% with the Ambu and 84% with the LMA Classic; p = 0.22). The volumes of air required to inflate the cuff to produce a seal were similar, but the cuff pressure was lower for the Ambu Laryngeal Mask (median (IQR [range]) 18 (10-31 [0-100] cmH(2)O) than the LMA Classic 27 (17-50 [4-90] cmH(2)O; p = 0.007). Visual analogue scores for ease of insertion were 87 (73-93 [26-97]) mm for the Ambu and 84 (60-89 [18-96]) for the LMA Classic (p = 0.017). Complications were similar in both groups. We suggest that the disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask is an acceptable alternative to the reusable LMA Classic.
一次性使用的声门上气道装置现已可用，旨在与可重复使用的LMA Classic喉罩气道相媲美。我们进行了一项随机交叉研究，比较了Ambu AuraOnce喉罩与LMA Classic。50名患者参与了试验。首次插入的成功率相似（Ambu为92%，LMA Classic为84%；p = 0.22）。使套囊充气以形成密封所需的空气量相似，但Ambu喉罩的套囊压力低于LMA Classic（中位数（四分位间距[范围]）18（10 - 31 [0 - 100] cmH₂O），而LMA Classic为27（17 - 50 [4 - 90] cmH₂O；p = 0.007）。Ambu插入 ease的视觉模拟评分为87（73 - 93 [26 - 97]）mm，LMA Classic为84（60 - 89 [18 - 96]）（p = 0.017）。两组并发症相似。我们认为一次性使用的Ambu喉罩是可重复使用的LMA Classic的可接受替代方案。
Zotero 插件