Joshi G P, Inagaki Y, White P F, Taylor-Kennedy L, Wat L I, Gevirtz C, McCraney J M, McCulloch D A
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 75235-9068, USA.
Anesth Analg. 1997 Sep;85(3):573-7. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199709000-00016.
We designed a prospective, randomized, multicenter study to compare anesthetic requirements, recovery times, and postoperative side effects when a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) was used as an alternative to the tracheal tube (TT) during ambulatory anesthesia. After induction of anesthesia with midazolam 2 mg, fentanyl 1 microg/kg, and propofol 2 mg/kg, 381 patients were randomly assigned to receive either an LMA (n = 207) or TT (n = 174) for airway management. In patients assigned to the TT group, succinylcholine 1 mg/kg or a nondepolarizing muscle relaxant was administered to facilitate tracheal intubation. Anesthesia was maintained with volatile anesthetics in combination with nitrous oxide 60% and oxygen. The average time to placement of the two airway devices (5 min) and the failure rates (1%) were similar in the two groups. Although there was a significant decrease in the intraoperative fentanyl requirement in the LMA group, the difference was of little clinical significance. Furthermore, there were no differences in the volatile anesthetic requirements. The time from end of surgery to removal of the airway device (5 min) was also similar in the two study groups. Although duration of the postanesthesia care unit stay and time to ambulation were significantly shorter in the LMA group, there were no differences in the times to "home readiness." The incidence of nausea and vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetic treatments in the postoperative period were similar in the two airway management groups. However, the incidence of postoperative sore throat was significantly greater in patients receiving the TT (versus the LMA). In conclusion, this study suggests that the LMA is a useful alternative to the TT for airway management during ambulatory anesthesia.
Use of the laryngeal mask airway can obviate the need for insertion of a tracheal tube for many ambulatory surgery procedures, and thereby decrease the incidence of postoperative sore throats.
我们设计了一项前瞻性、随机、多中心研究,以比较在门诊麻醉期间使用喉罩气道(LMA)替代气管导管(TT)时的麻醉需求、恢复时间和术后副作用。在使用2毫克咪达唑仑、1微克/千克芬太尼和2毫克/千克丙泊酚诱导麻醉后,381例患者被随机分配接受LMA(n = 207)或TT(n = 174)进行气道管理。在分配至TT组的患者中,给予1毫克/千克琥珀胆碱或非去极化肌松药以促进气管插管。使用挥发性麻醉药联合60%氧化亚氮和氧气维持麻醉。两组放置两种气道装置的平均时间(5分钟)和失败率(1%)相似。尽管LMA组术中芬太尼需求量显著降低,但差异在临床上意义不大。此外,挥发性麻醉药需求量无差异。两个研究组从手术结束到移除气道装置的时间(5分钟)也相似。尽管LMA组麻醉后护理单元停留时间和下床活动时间显著缩短,但“准备出院时间”无差异。两个气道管理组术后恶心呕吐发生率和急救性止吐治疗需求相似。然而,接受TT(相对于LMA)的患者术后咽痛发生率显著更高。总之,本研究表明,LMA是门诊麻醉期间气道管理中TT的有用替代方法。
使用喉罩气道可避免许多门诊手术插入气管导管的需求,从而降低术后咽痛的发生率。