Brimacombe J, Dunbar-Reid K
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Queensland, Australia.
Anaesthesia. 1996 Oct;51(10):923-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1996.tb14958.x.
The laryngeal mask airway, reinforced laryngeal mask airway and tracheal tube were studied to determine (1) flow resistance during simulated inspiration and (2) the maximum size of fibreoptic scope which can be passed down the lumen at clinically useful ventilatory settings. In addition, the flow resistance imposed by the mask aperature bars was quantified. The laryngeal mask airway can accommodate a larger fibrescope than the corresponding sizes of reinforced laryngeal mask airway or tracheal tube. Mean (range) flow resistance was 2.3 (1.7-3.5) times higher with the reinforced laryngeal mask airway compared to the laryngeal mask airway, 2.1 (1.2-4.2) times higher with the tracheal tube compared with the laryngeal mask airway and 1.2 (0.7-1.8) times lower with the tracheal compared with the reinforced laryngeal mask airway. Removal of the mask aperture bars resulted in a mean decrease in flow resistance of 3.6%. Our data have shown that the laryngeal mask airway can accommodate a larger fibrescope than either the reinforced laryngeal mask airway or tracheal tube at clinically useful ventilatory settings and that the current recommendations for maximum size of fibrescope should be revised.
对喉罩气道、加强型喉罩气道和气管导管进行了研究,以确定:(1)模拟吸气时的流动阻力;(2)在临床有用的通气设置下,可通过管腔的最大纤维支气管镜尺寸。此外,还对喉罩孔栏造成的流动阻力进行了量化。与相应尺寸的加强型喉罩气道或气管导管相比,喉罩气道能够容纳更大的纤维支气管镜。加强型喉罩气道的平均(范围)流动阻力比喉罩气道高2.3(1.7 - 3.5)倍,气管导管比喉罩气道高2.1(1.2 - 4.2)倍,气管导管比加强型喉罩气道低1.2(0.7 - 1.8)倍。去除喉罩孔栏后,流动阻力平均降低3.6%。我们的数据表明,在临床有用的通气设置下,喉罩气道能够比加强型喉罩气道或气管导管容纳更大的纤维支气管镜,并且目前关于纤维支气管镜最大尺寸的建议应该修订。