Cook T M
Department of Anaesthesia, Royal United Hospital, Bath.
Anaesthesia. 1996 Apr;51(4):365-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1996.tb07750.x.
One hundred and twenty patients were studied to compare the view of the larynx at laryngoscopy with one- or two-handed cricoid pressure applied. A blinded crossover technique was employed. When the grade of laryngeal view achieved with either type of cricoid pressure was compared using a 4-point scale there was no significant difference. However, when the views were compared with greater discrimination the laryngeal view achieved with one-handed cricoid pressure was significantly better than that seen with two-handed cricoid pressure. There was no significant difference between the groups in the need for a gum elastic bougie to facilitate intubation. A two-handed technique has been advocated to improve intubation conditions when cricoid pressure is required. It has several disadvantages, its efficacy has not been proven and this study suggests it does not improve the view at laryngoscopy. Two-handed cricoid pressure should no longer be advocated unless an advantage over one-handed cricoid pressure can be shown.
对120名患者进行了研究，以比较在喉镜检查时应用单手或双手环状软骨压迫法时的喉部视野。采用了双盲交叉技术。当使用4分制比较两种类型的环状软骨压迫法所获得的喉镜视野分级时，没有显著差异。然而，当更细致地比较视野时，单手环状软骨压迫法所获得的喉镜视野明显优于双手环状软骨压迫法。两组在使用弹性橡胶探条辅助插管的需求方面没有显著差异。有人主张采用双手技术来改善需要进行环状软骨压迫时的插管条件。它有几个缺点，其有效性尚未得到证实，并且本研究表明它并不能改善喉镜检查时的视野。除非能证明双手环状软骨压迫法比单手环状软骨压迫法有优势，否则不应再提倡使用双手环状软骨压迫法。
