• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

复方洋甘菊利多卡因凝胶对喉罩气道正压通气后口咽并发症的影响

[Effect of compound chamomile and lidocaine hydrochloride gel on oropharyngeal complications after the use of laryngeal mask airway with positive pressure ventilation].

作者信息

Wang H J, Wang S S, Wang G Y

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100730, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2023 Aug 22;103(31):2420-2426. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20230504-00720.

DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20230504-00720
PMID:37599216
Abstract

To evaluate the effect of compound chamomile and lidocaine hydrochloride gel on oropharyngeal complications after the use of laryngeal mask airway with positive pressure ventilation. A total of 64 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia using laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with positive pressure ventilation in Beijing Tongren Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University From January to March 2023 were prospectively selected and divided into two groups by the random number table method: normal saline group (=32), with 18 males and 14 females, aged 28-64 (48.4±10.6) years, and the compound chamomile and lidocaine hydrochloride gel group (chamomile gel group, =32), with 18 males and 14 females, aged 24-64 (46.3±10.8) years. Patients in both groups received total intravenous anesthesia. Before LMA placement, the front, shoulder and back of LMA were lubricated with normal saline and compound chamomile and lidocaine hydrochloride gel in the normal saline group and the chamomile gel group, respectively. The main outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative oropharyngeal mucosal inflammation at different time points after the removal of the laryngeal mask. Secondary outcome measures included oropharyngeal mucositis score, sore throat score, hoarse voice score, cough score and throat dryness score at different time points after LMA removal, the number of LMA insertion times, time of successful insertion and leakage pressure, as well as stress reactions such as cough and agitation before and after LMA removal, and adverse reactions such as tongue numbness and protective pharyngeal reflex limitation during recovery. The incidence of oropharyngeal mucositis in the chamomile gel group was 25.0% (8/32), 31.3% (10/32), 28.1% (9/32) and 3.1% (1/32) at 0.5, 3, 6 and 24 h after LMA removal, respectively, which were lower than those of normal saline group [53.1% (17/32), 59.4% (19/32), 59.4% (19/32) and 21.9% (7/32)] (all <0.05). The oropharyngeal mucositis scores of patients in the chamomile gel group were 0 (0, 0.8), 0 (0, 1.0), 0 (0, 1.0) and 0 (0, 0) respectively at 0.5, 3, 6 and 24 h after LMA removal, which were lower than those in the saline group [1.0 (1.0, 1.8), 1.0 (0, 2.0), 1.0 (0, 2.0) and 0 (0, 0)] (all <0.05). The cough score of the patients in the chamomile gel group was 0 (0, 0) and 0 (0, 0) at 3, 6 h after LMA removal, which were lower than those of the normal saline group [(0, 0) and 0 (0, 0)] (both <0.05). The throat dryness score of the patients in the chamomile gel group was 0 (0, 1.0) at 3 h after LMA removal, which was lower than that of the normal saline group [1.0 (0.3, 1.0)] (=0.019). The time of successful LMA insertion in the chamomile gel group was 25.0 (20.3, 29.8) s, which was shorter than that in the saline group [29.0 (25.0, 32.0) s] (=0.016). There were no significant differences in the number of LMA insertion, leakage pressure, postoperative sore throat and hoarse voice scores between the two groups (all >0.05). Likewise, there were no stress reactions such as cough and agitation before and after LMA removal, and no adverse reactions such as tongue numbness and limited protective pharyngeal reflex during recovery. Compound chamomile and hydrochloride lidocaine gel can reduce the incidence of postoperative oropharyngeal mucositis, relieve the symptoms of postoperative oropharyngeal mucositis, pharyngeal dryness and cough, and improve the postoperative comfort of patients using the laryngeal mask airway with positive pressure ventilation.

摘要

评估复方洋甘菊利多卡因凝胶对使用喉罩气道行正压通气后口咽并发症的影响。前瞻性选取2023年1月至3月在首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院择期行全身麻醉、使用喉罩气道(LMA)行正压通气的64例患者,采用随机数字表法分为两组:生理盐水组(n = 32),男18例,女14例,年龄28 - 64岁(48.4±10.6)岁;复方洋甘菊利多卡因凝胶组(洋甘菊凝胶组,n = 32),男18例,女14例,年龄24 - 64岁(46.3±10.8)岁。两组患者均采用全静脉麻醉。在放置LMA前,生理盐水组用生理盐水、洋甘菊凝胶组用复方洋甘菊利多卡因凝胶分别润滑LMA的前端、肩部和后端。主要观察指标为拔除喉罩后不同时间点口咽黏膜炎症的发生率。次要观察指标包括拔除LMA后不同时间点的口咽黏膜炎评分、咽痛评分、声音嘶哑评分、咳嗽评分及咽干评分,LMA插入次数、成功插入时间及漏气压力,以及拔除LMA前后的咳嗽、躁动等应激反应,恢复过程中的舌麻木、咽反射受限等不良反应。洋甘菊凝胶组拔除LMA后0.5、3、6及24 h口咽黏膜炎发生率分别为25.0%(8/32)、31.3%(10/32)、28.1%(9/32)及3.1%(1/32),低于生理盐水组[53.1%(17/32)、59.4%(19/32)、59.4%(19/32)及21.9%(7/32)](均P<0.05)。洋甘菊凝胶组患者拔除LMA后0.5、3、6及24 h口咽黏膜炎评分分别为0(0,0.8)、0(0,1.0)、0(0,1.0)及0(0,0),低于生理盐水组[1.0(1.0,1.8)、1.0(0,2.0)、1.0(0,2.0)及0(0,0)](均P<0.05)。洋甘菊凝胶组患者拔除LMA后3、6 h咳嗽评分为0(0,0)及0(0,0),低于生理盐水组[(0,0)及0(0,0)](均P<0.05)。洋甘菊凝胶组患者拔除LMA后3 h咽干评分为0(0,1.0),低于生理盐水组[1.0(0.3,1.0)](P = 0.019)。洋甘菊凝胶组LMA成功插入时间为25.0(20.3,29.8)s,短于生理盐水组[29.0(25.0,32.0)s](P = 0.016)。两组LMA插入次数、漏气压力、术后咽痛及声音嘶哑评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。同样,两组拔除LMA前后均无咳嗽、躁动等应激反应,恢复过程中均无舌麻木、咽反射受限等不良反应。复方洋甘菊利多卡因凝胶可降低使用喉罩气道行正压通气患者术后口咽黏膜炎的发生率,减轻术后口咽黏膜炎、咽干及咳嗽症状,提高患者术后舒适度。

相似文献

1
[Effect of compound chamomile and lidocaine hydrochloride gel on oropharyngeal complications after the use of laryngeal mask airway with positive pressure ventilation].复方洋甘菊利多卡因凝胶对喉罩气道正压通气后口咽并发症的影响
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2023 Aug 22;103(31):2420-2426. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20230504-00720.
2
Sore throat following three adult supraglottic airway devices: A randomised controlled trial.三种成人声门上气道装置使用后咽痛的随机对照试验。
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017 Jul;34(7):417-424. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000539.
3
Randomized comparison of the i-gel(TM) with the LMA Supreme (TM) in anesthetized adult patients.在成年麻醉患者中i-gel™与LMA Supreme™的随机对照比较。
Anaesthesist. 2015 Apr;64(4):271-6. doi: 10.1007/s00101-015-0020-z. Epub 2015 Mar 24.
4
The impact of topical lidocaine and timing of LMA removal on the incidence of airway events during the recovery period in children: a randomized controlled trial.局麻利多卡因和喉罩移除时机对儿童恢复期气道事件发生率的影响:一项随机对照试验。
BMC Anesthesiol. 2021 Jan 8;21(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s12871-021-01235-7.
5
Application of Minimum Effective Cuff Inflating Volume for Laryngeal Mask Airway and its Impact on Postoperative Pharyngeal Complications.喉罩气道最小有效套囊充气量的应用及其对术后咽部并发症的影响。
Chin Med J (Engl). 2015 Oct 5;128(19):2570-6. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.166034.
6
Comparison between LMA-Classic and AMBU AuraOnce laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing elective general anaesthesia with positive pressure ventilation.在接受择期全身麻醉并进行正压通气的患者中,LMA-Classic喉罩与AMBU AuraOnce喉罩的比较。
Med J Malaysia. 2011 Oct;66(4):304-7.
7
Laryngeal mask airway protector generates higher oropharyngeal leak pressures compared to the laryngeal mask airway supreme: A randomized clinical trial in the ambulatory surgery unit.与喉罩气道加强型相比,喉罩气道保护器产生更高的口咽漏气压:门诊手术单元的一项随机临床试验。
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Apr-Jun;37(2):221-225. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_416_19. Epub 2021 Jul 15.
8
Pharyngolaryngeal, neck, and jaw discomfort after anesthesia with the face mask and laryngeal mask airway at high and low cuff volumes in males and females.男性和女性在使用面罩和喉罩气道进行麻醉时,高、低套囊容积下的咽喉、颈部和颌部不适。
Anesthesiology. 2000 Jul;93(1):26-31. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200007000-00009.
9
Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial.喉罩 Supreme 与喉罩 ProSeal 的安全性和有效性:一项随机对照试验。
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Jul;27(7):602-7. doi: 10.1097/eja.0b013e32833679e3.
10
Reducing sore throat following laryngeal mask airway insertion: comparing lidocaine gel, saline, and washing mouth with the control group.减少喉罩置入术后咽痛:利多卡因凝胶、生理盐水及漱口与对照组的比较
Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015 Nov-Dec;65(6):450-4. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2013.07.001. Epub 2013 Oct 26.