Rajappa Geetha C, Parate Leena Harshad, Tejesh C A, Prathima P T
Department of Anaesthesia, M. S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Anesth Essays Res. 2016 Sep-Dec;10(3):643-648. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.191111.
Mask ventilation (MV) is an essential basic life support skill. We used chin lift maneuver for MV and named as modified chin lift technique (MCL). EC technique is most common technique used for MV.
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of both techniques for MV in term of expired tidal volume (TV). Secondarily, we also assessed the effect of experience on the performance of these both techniques.
The study area was operation theater of our hospital. This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study.
A total 108 adults undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were recruited. In all patients, operators (novice/anesthesiologist) randomly performed both techniques either to start with EC or MCL technique. Expired TV was measured for one minute for each technique.
Paired -test was used to compare TV.
The mean TV was significantly higher in MCL group than EC group (528.08 [104.96] ml vs. 483.39 [103] ml; < 0.001). The novice (521.89 [117.9] ml vs. 478.70 [130.29] ml; < 0.001) as well as anesthesiologists (534.27 [110.85] ml vs. 488.08 [111.6] ml; < 0.001) was able to generate significantly more TV with MCL technique than EC technique. The TV did not differ significantly between novice and anesthesiologist for EC technique ( = 0.474) or MCL technique ( = 0.187). Novices as well as anesthesiologist felt MCL technique more satisfactory (70%).
CTRI/2016/04/006874.
面罩通气（MV）是一项基本的基础生命支持技能。我们在面罩通气时采用抬颏手法，并将其命名为改良抬颏技术（MCL）。食管气管联合导管（EC）技术是面罩通气最常用的技术。
本研究的目的是比较这两种面罩通气技术在呼出潮气量（TV）方面的效果。其次，我们还评估了经验对这两种技术操作的影响。
研究地点为我院手术室。这是一项前瞻性、随机、交叉研究。
共招募了108例接受全身麻醉下择期手术的成年人。在所有患者中，操作者（新手/麻醉医生）随机采用两种技术中的一种开始操作，即先采用EC技术或MCL技术。每种技术均测量一分钟的呼出潮气量。
采用配对t检验比较潮气量。
MCL组的平均潮气量显著高于EC组（528.08[104.96]ml对483.39[103]ml；P<0.001）。新手（521.89[117.9]ml对478.70[130.29]ml；P<0.001）以及麻醉医生（534.27[110.85]ml对488.08[111.6]ml；P<0.001）采用MCL技术时产生的潮气量均显著多于采用EC技术时。对于EC技术（P=0.474）或MCL技术（P=0.187），新手和麻醉医生之间的潮气量差异不显著。新手和麻醉医生都认为MCL技术更令人满意（70%）。
CTRI/2016/04/006874。
