Suppr超能文献

i-gel™喉罩与AuraOnce™喉罩用于瘫痪患者控制通气的全身麻醉

i-gel™ vs. AuraOnce™ laryngeal mask for general anaesthesia with controlled ventilation in paralyzed patients.

作者信息

Donaldson William, Abraham Alexander, Deighan Mairead, Michalek Pavel

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesia, Antrim Area Hospital, 45 Bush Road, Antrim, United Kingdom/ Northern Ireland.

出版信息

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2011 Jun;155(2):155-63. doi: 10.5507/bp.2011.023.

Abstract

AIMS

The i-gel™ and the AuraOnce™ laryngeal mask are supraglottic airway devices used for airway management during general anaesthesia. Both devices are cheap, disposable and widely used. They may be used with both spontaneous and controlled ventilation. This study compared differences in the seal and peak pressures, and postoperative complications in these devices when used in paralyzed patients under controlled ventilation.

METHODS

A prospective randomized trial was designed to compare the i-gel™ and the AuraOnce™ in paralyzed adult patients under conditions of controlled ventilation. Two hundred and four patients (ASA class 1-3, age 18-89, weight 46-115 kg) were enrolled in the study. Standardized anaesthesia (fentanyl, propofol and sevoflurane in air-oxygen) was administered including neuromuscular blockade. The primary outcome measure was the difference in seal airway pressures between the two devices. Secondary outcome measures included peak airway pressures, insertion data and postoperative profiles--the incidence of sore throat, swallowing difficulties, numb tongue, hearing difficulties, neck pain, nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

First time insertions were 85.6% (i-gel) and 82% (AuraOnce) with overall success rates 96.3% (i-gel) and 94.2% (AuraOnce) (p=0.54). Average insertion times were 11.0 s (i-gel) and 11.6 s (AuraOnce) (p=0.19). Seal pressures were 30.4 cmH(2)O (i-gel) and 27.8 cmH(2)O (AuraOnce) (p=0.007). Peak pressures were 15.3 cmH(2)O (i-gel) and 15.6 cmH(2)O (AuraOnce) (p=0.57). Traumatic insertion occurred in 5.8% of i-gel™ and 2% of AuraOnce™ insertions. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was low, with the i-gel™ causing less sore throat and difficulty swallowing at 24h. Conclusion. Both devices provided effective seals for ventilation under positive pressure. I-gel™ may be a better alternative for the procedures with controlled ventilation because of higher seal pressures and lower incidence of sore throat postoperatively.

摘要

目的

i-gel™喉罩和AuraOnce™喉罩是用于全身麻醉期间气道管理的声门上气道装置。这两种装置价格便宜、一次性使用且广泛应用。它们可用于自主通气和控制通气。本研究比较了在控制通气下用于瘫痪患者时,这些装置在密封压力和峰值压力以及术后并发症方面的差异。

方法

设计一项前瞻性随机试验,以比较在控制通气条件下i-gel™喉罩和AuraOnce™喉罩在成年瘫痪患者中的应用。204例患者(ASA分级1-3级,年龄18-89岁,体重46-115kg)纳入研究。给予标准化麻醉(芬太尼、丙泊酚和七氟醚混合空气-氧气),包括神经肌肉阻滞。主要观察指标是两种装置之间的密封气道压力差异。次要观察指标包括峰值气道压力、插入数据和术后情况——咽痛、吞咽困难、舌麻木、听力困难、颈部疼痛、恶心和呕吐的发生率。

结果

首次插入成功率i-gel™为85.6%,AuraOnce™为82%,总体成功率i-gel™为96.3%,AuraOnce™为94.2%(p=0.54)。平均插入时间i-gel™为11.0秒,AuraOnce™为11.6秒(p=0.19)。密封压力i-gel™为30.4cmH₂O,AuraOnce™为27.8cmH₂O(p=0.007)。峰值压力i-gel™为15.3cmH₂O,AuraOnce™为15.6cmH₂O(p=0.57)。i-gel™插入时5.8%发生创伤性插入,AuraOnce™插入时为2%。术后并发症总体发生率较低,i-gel™在24小时时引起的咽痛和吞咽困难较少。结论:两种装置在正压通气下均能提供有效的密封。由于i-gel™密封压力较高且术后咽痛发生率较低,在控制通气的手术中可能是更好的选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验