Alexander R, Hodgson P, Lomax D, Bullen C
Department of Anaesthesia, Middlesex Hospital, London.
Anaesthesia. 1993 Mar;48(3):231-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb06909.x.
Ten volunteers, with no previous experience of resuscitation, were formally trained in the use of the laryngeal mask airway and the oropharyngeal airway (Guedel), bag and facemask for manual ventilation of the lungs in 104 fit, anaesthetised adults. They then used both airways in turn. The order of insertion was randomly allocated, and the times taken for insertion were also recorded. Ventilation for each airway was deemed to be successful if an increase in end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure did not occur and arterial oxygen saturation remained greater than 90%. Success rates for the laryngeal mask airway and the Guedel airway, bag and facemask were 87% and 43% respectively (p < 0.001) and the average insertion times were 27.4 s (SEM 1.5) and 15.8 s (SEM 0.50) (no significant difference), respectively. The laryngeal mask airway proved to be easier to use for manual ventilation than the Guedel airway, bag and mask for inexperienced personnel who had received a period of formal training in both techniques.
十名此前没有复苏经验的志愿者，针对104名健康的成年麻醉患者，接受了使用喉罩气道、口咽气道（古德尔气道）、球囊面罩进行肺部手动通气的正式培训。然后他们依次使用这两种气道。插入顺序随机分配，插入所需时间也进行了记录。如果呼气末二氧化碳分压没有升高且动脉血氧饱和度保持在90%以上，则认为每种气道的通气成功。喉罩气道和古德尔气道、球囊面罩的成功率分别为87%和43%（p<0.001），平均插入时间分别为27.4秒（标准误1.5）和15.8秒（标准误0.50）（无显著差异）。对于在这两种技术方面都接受过一段时间正式培训的缺乏经验的人员来说，喉罩气道被证明比古德尔气道、球囊面罩更易于用于手动通气。
