Francksen H, Renner J, Hanss R, Scholz J, Doerges V, Bein B
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Anaesthesia. 2009 Oct;64(10):1118-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06017.x.
This study assessed two disposable devices; the newly developed supraglottic airway device i-gel and the LMA-Unique in routine clinical practice. Eighty patients (ASA 1-3) undergoing minor routine gynaecologic surgery were randomly allocated to have an i-gel (n = 40) or LMA-Unique (n = 40) inserted. Oxygen saturation, end-tidal carbon dioxide, tidal volume and peak airway pressure were recorded, as well as time of insertion, airway leak pressure, postoperative sore-throat, dysphonia and dysphagia for each device. Time of insertion was comparable with the i-gel and LMA-Unique. There was no failure in the i-gel group and one failure in the LMA-Unique group. Ventilation and oxygenation were similar between devices. Mean airway pressure was comparable with both devices, whereas airway leak pressure was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the i-gel group (mean 29 cmH(2)O, range 24-40) compared with the LMA-Unique group (mean 18 cmH(2)O, range 6-30). Fibreoptic score of the position of the devices was significantly better in the i-gel group. Post-operative sore-throat and dysphagia were comparable with both devices. Both devices appeared to be simple alternatives to secure the airway. Significantly higher airway leak pressure suggests that the i-gel may be advantageous in this respect.
本研究在常规临床实践中评估了两种一次性器械；新开发的声门上气道装置i-gel和LMA-Unique。80例（ASA 1-3级）接受小型常规妇科手术的患者被随机分配，分别插入i-gel（n = 40）或LMA-Unique（n = 40）。记录了氧饱和度、呼气末二氧化碳、潮气量和气道峰压，以及每种器械的插入时间、气道漏气压力、术后咽痛、声音嘶哑和吞咽困难情况。i-gel和LMA-Unique的插入时间相当。i-gel组无失败病例，LMA-Unique组有1例失败。两种器械的通气和氧合情况相似。两种器械的平均气道压力相当，而i-gel组的气道漏气压力显著更高（p < 0.0001）（平均29 cmH₂O，范围24-40），相比之下，LMA-Unique组（平均18 cmH₂O，范围6-30）。i-gel组器械位置的纤维光学评分明显更好。两种器械术后咽痛和吞咽困难情况相当。两种器械似乎都是确保气道安全的简单替代方案。显著更高的气道漏气压力表明i-gel在这方面可能具有优势。
