Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia.
Anaesthesia. 2010 Sep;65(9):913-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06422.x.
In a randomised, non-crossover study, we tested the hypothesis that the ease of insertion using a duodenal tube guided insertion technique and the oropharyngeal leak pressure differ between the LMA ProSeal and the i-gel in non-paralysed, anesthetised female subjects. One hundred and fifty-two females aged 19-70 years were studied. Insertion success rate, insertion time and oropharyngeal leak pressure were measured. First attempt and overall insertion success were similar (LMA ProSeal, 75/76 (99%) and 76/76 (100%); i-gel 73/75 (97%) and 75 (100%), respectively). Mean (SD) insertion times were similar (LMA ProSeal, 40 (16) s; i-gel 43 (21) s). Mean oropharyngeal leak pressure was 7 cmH(2) O higher with the LMA ProSeal (p < 0.0001). Insertion of the LMA ProSeal and i-gel is similarly easy using a duodenal tube guided technique, but the LMA ProSeal forms a more effective seal for ventilation.
在一项随机、非交叉研究中,我们检验了以下假设:在未麻痹的麻醉女性受试者中,使用十二指肠管引导插入技术的插入容易度和咽腔漏气压在 LMA ProSeal 和 i-gel 之间存在差异。研究纳入了 152 名年龄在 19-70 岁的女性。测量了插入成功率、插入时间和咽腔漏气压。首次尝试和总体插入成功率相似(LMA ProSeal,75/76(99%)和 76/76(100%);i-gel 73/75(97%)和 75(100%))。平均(SD)插入时间相似(LMA ProSeal,40(16)s;i-gel 43(21)s)。LMA ProSeal 的咽腔漏气压平均高 7 cmH2O(p<0.0001)。使用十二指肠管引导技术,插入 LMA ProSeal 和 i-gel 同样容易,但 LMA ProSeal 形成更有效的通气密封。