经喉罩气道导入型喉罩（ILMA）引导下纤维光学插管与经LMA-CTrach插管的比较。

Comparison of fibreoptic-guided intubation through ILMA versus intubation through LMA-CTrach.

作者信息

Sreevathsa S, Nathan P Linga, John B, Danha R F, Mendonca C

机构信息

Neville Hall Hospital, Abergavenny, Gwent, UK.

出版信息

Anaesthesia. 2008 Jul;63(7):734-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05481.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05481.x

PMID:18582259

Abstract

We compared the time taken to intubate the trachea of a manikin by fibreoptic-guided intubation through an intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA-FOS) with intubation through a laryngeal mask airway CTrach (LMA-CTrach). Forty-two anaesthetists participated in this randomised crossover study. Although the insertion time was similar, the time taken to intubate the trachea was significantly shorter with the LMA-CTrach as compared with the ILMA-FOS, with a mean time (SD) for ILMA-FOS and CTrach 84 (32) and 53 (21) s, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean difference in the total time between the two techniques was 31 s, with a 95% confidence interval of 22 to 39 s. Thirty (71%) anaesthetists preferred LMA-CTrach as compared with ILMA-FOS (p = 0.008). We conclude that LMA-CTrach is a suitable alternative to fibreoptic-guided intubation through ILMA for the management of unanticipated failed intubation.

摘要

我们比较了通过插管喉罩气道（ILMA-FOS）进行纤维支气管镜引导插管与通过喉罩气道CTrach（LMA-CTrach）对人体模型进行气管插管所需的时间。42名麻醉医生参与了这项随机交叉研究。尽管插入时间相似，但与ILMA-FOS相比，使用LMA-CTrach进行气管插管的时间明显更短，ILMA-FOS和CTrach的平均时间（标准差）分别为84（32）秒和53（21）秒（p<0.001）。两种技术总时间的平均差异为31秒，95%置信区间为22至39秒。与ILMA-FOS相比，30名（71%）麻醉医生更喜欢LMA-CTrach（p=0.008）。我们得出结论，对于意外插管失败的处理，LMA-CTrach是通过ILMA进行纤维支气管镜引导插管的合适替代方法。