Shariffuddin I I, Wang C Y
Department of Anaesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 59100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Anaesthesia. 2008 Jan;63(1):82-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05284.x.
We compared the performance of the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask with that of the LMA Classic laryngeal mask airway during controlled anaesthesia. Forty patients requiring intermittent positive pressure ventilation were studied using a randomised crossover design. The mean (SD) oropharyngeal leak pressure for the Ambu device (19 (7.5) cmH2O) was significantly greater than for the LMA Classic (15 (5.2) cmH2O; p = 0.004), and the number of attempts for successful insertions was significantly less (39 (50%) vs 45 (56%), respectively; p = 0.02). There was one failure to obtain a patent airway with the Ambu Laryngeal Mask and none with the LMA Classic. Insertion of the Ambu Laryngeal Mask required more manipulations to achieve a patent airway than did the LMA Classic (6 (15%) vs 1 (2.5%), respectively; p = 0.045), but the time taken for insertion was similar between the two groups. The incidence of trauma, grade of fibreoptic view, peak airway pressure and quality of ventilation during maintenance of anaesthesia were similar in both groups.
我们在控制性麻醉期间比较了Ambu AuraOnce喉罩与LMA Classic喉罩气道的性能。采用随机交叉设计对40例需要间歇性正压通气的患者进行了研究。Ambu装置的平均(标准差)口咽漏气压(19(7.5)cmH₂O)显著高于LMA Classic(15(5.2)cmH₂O;p = 0.004),成功插入的尝试次数显著更少(分别为39次(50%)和45次(56%);p = 0.02)。使用Ambu喉罩时有1例未能获得通畅气道,而使用LMA Classic时无此情况。与LMA Classic相比,插入Ambu喉罩以获得通畅气道需要更多操作(分别为6次(15%)和1次(2.5%);p = 0.045),但两组的插入时间相似。两组在麻醉维持期间的创伤发生率、纤维喉镜视野分级、气道峰值压力和通气质量相似。