Kim Hyun Joo, Kim Shin Hyung, Min Nar Hyun, Park Wyun Kon
From the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (HJK, SHK, NHM, WKP).
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016 Dec;33(12):936-942. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000439.
Two external facial measurements have been recommended as reference criteria for estimating appropriate oropharyngeal airway sizes: the distances between the maxillary incisors to the angle of the mandible, and that from the corner of the mouth to the angle of the mandible.
To compare the two guidelines and to determine the optimal external facial measurements for the selection of an appropriately sized airway in adults.
Randomised crossover study.
Operating theatres in a university hospital.
A total of 113 patients requiring tracheal intubation for general anaesthesia.
Two oropharyngeal airway sizes were selected on the basis of two external facial measurements (tip of the upper central maxillary incisors to the angle of the mandible and corner of the mouth to the angle of the mandible). After assessing manual and pressure-controlled ventilation without an airway, the adequacy of ventilation with each oropharyngeal airway was assessed in a similar manner. Before changing the oropharyngeal airway, the view at the distal end of each airway was evaluated using endoscopy via a fibreoptic bronchoscope.
Ventilation parameters and the endoscopic views at the distal ends of the airways were assessed.
In the maxillary incisors to the angle of the mandible group, there was clear manual ventilation through the oropharyngeal airway in all patients, whereas partially obstructed ventilation was observed in 6% of patients in the corner of the mouth to the angle of the mandible group. In the maxillary incisors to the angle of the mandible group, mechanical ventilation through the oropharyngeal airway was adequate in all patients but in the corner of the mouth to the angle of the mandible group, inadequate ventilation was observed in 7% patients. In the maxillary incisors to the angle of the mandible group, the endoscopy did not identify any patient with complete obstruction of the airway by the tongue but in the corner of the mouth to the angle of the mandible group, 40% of patients had complete obstruction by the tongue. In the maxillary incisors to the angle of the mandible group, the tip of the airway passed beyond the tip of the epiglottis in 22% of patients, in contrast, none of the airways in the corner of the mouth to the angle of the mandible group passed beyond the tip of the epiglottis.
With regard to adequate ventilation in conjunction with an acceptable endoscopic view, an oropharyngeal airway whose size is based upon the distance from the maxillary incisors to the angle of the mandible is more advantageous than if based upon the distance from the corner of the mouth to the angle of the mandible.
Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01945411. The clinical trial was registered before patient enrolment.
推荐两种面部外部测量方法作为估计合适口咽气道尺寸的参考标准:上颌切牙至下颌角的距离,以及口角至下颌角的距离。
比较这两种指导方法,并确定为成人选择合适尺寸气道的最佳面部外部测量方法。
随机交叉研究。
大学医院的手术室。
总共113例需要全身麻醉气管插管的患者。
根据两种面部外部测量方法(上颌中切牙尖端至下颌角和口角至下颌角)选择两种口咽气道尺寸。在评估无气道时的手动和压力控制通气后,以类似方式评估每个口咽气道的通气充分性。在更换口咽气道之前,通过纤维支气管镜使用内窥镜评估每个气道远端的视野。
评估通气参数和气道远端的内窥镜视野。
在上颌切牙至下颌角组中,所有患者通过口咽气道均可实现清晰的手动通气,而在口角至下颌角组中,6%的患者观察到通气部分受阻。在上颌切牙至下颌角组中,所有患者通过口咽气道进行机械通气均充分,但在口角至下颌角组中,7%的患者观察到通气不足。在上颌切牙至下颌角组中,内窥镜检查未发现任何患者气道被舌头完全阻塞,但在口角至下颌角组中,40%的患者气道被舌头完全阻塞。在上颌切牙至下颌角组中,22%的患者气道尖端超过会厌尖端,相比之下,口角至下颌角组中没有气道超过会厌尖端。
关于通气充分且内窥镜视野可接受,尺寸基于上颌切牙至下颌角距离的口咽气道比基于口角至下颌角距离的口咽气道更具优势。
Clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT01945411。该临床试验在患者入组前进行了注册。