Department of Anesthesiology, Renhe Hospital (Fudan University Huashan Hospital Baoshan Branch), Shanghai, China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Renhe Hospital (Fudan University Huashan Hospital Baoshan Branch), Shanghai, China.
J Perianesth Nurs. 2024 Feb;39(1):48-57.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jopan.2023.05.008. Epub 2023 Oct 11.
The purpose of this article is to compare the safety of the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (PLMA) and the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) during general anesthesia.
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Two authors performed searches of Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed to identify clinical trials that compared PLMA and SLIPA in patients receiving general anesthesia. Relative risk (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to pool the dichotomous data. The mean difference (MD) and the associated 95% CI were applied to pool continuous data. RevMan 5.0 software was used for data analysis.
A total of 15 studies with 1263 patients were included. There was no significant difference between PLMA and SLIPA in the rate of insertion success on the first attempt (RR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.95, 1.09], P = .59), airway sealing pressure (MD = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.58], P = .08) and the incidence of a sore throat (RR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.7, 1.04], P = .12). The insertion time of PLMA was shorter than SLIPA (MD = 5.24, 95% CI [0.51, 9.98], P = .03), and the incidence of bloodstaining on the device was lower (RR = 0.72, 95% CI [0.55, 0.94], P = .02).
Both devices have a high rate of insertion success on the first attempt and airway sealing pressure. But PLMA has a shorter insertion time and less incidence of blood staining, which is more advantageous than SLIPA.
本文旨在比较普通麻醉中喉罩气道 ProSeal(PLMA)和咽腔通气道(SLIPA)的安全性。
本研究为系统评价和荟萃分析。
两位作者对 Embase、Web of Science 和 PubMed 进行了检索,以确定比较接受全身麻醉的患者中使用 PLMA 和 SLIPA 的临床试验。使用相对风险(RR)及其相应的 95%置信区间(CI)对二项数据进行合并。应用均数差(MD)及其相关的 95%CI 对连续数据进行合并。使用 RevMan 5.0 软件进行数据分析。
共纳入 15 项研究,共 1263 例患者。首次尝试插入时,PLMA 与 SLIPA 的插入成功率(RR=1.02,95%CI[0.95,1.09],P=0.59)、气道密封压(MD=0.75,95%CI[-0.09,1.58],P=0.08)和咽痛发生率(RR=0.85,95%CI[0.7,1.04],P=0.12)无显著差异。PLMA 的插入时间短于 SLIPA(MD=5.24,95%CI[0.51,9.98],P=0.03),设备上出现血迹的发生率较低(RR=0.72,95%CI[0.55,0.94],P=0.02)。
两种设备首次尝试插入的成功率和气道密封压均较高。但 PLMA 的插入时间更短,出现血迹的发生率更低,比 SLIPA 更有优势。