丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼喉罩全麻的效果分析与研究

目的 探讨丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼喉罩全身麻醉(全麻)的效果。方法 62例腹腔镜、泌尿科、骨科、肛肠科、妇科等手术治疗的患者,随机分为实验组和对照组,每组31例。对照组采用常规气管插管静脉复合全麻,实验组给予靶控输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼喉罩全麻。比较两组患者插入喉罩(插管)、插管1 min、插管3 min、拔出喉罩(拔管)1 min、拔管3 min时心率(HR)和平均动脉压(MAP)水平;不良反应发生情况、麻醉效果;全麻起效时间、维持全麻时间、术后苏醒时间。结果 实验组插管时、插管1 min、插管3 min、拔管1 min、拔管3 min的HR水平分别为(77.52±6.36)、(73.26±5.56)、(72.01±4.69)、(75.35±7.63)、(72.34±6.79)次/min,均低于对照组的(92.34±7.85)、(87.97±5.25)、(78.85±5.20)、(95.69±9.21)、(85.63±7.43)次/min,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组插管时、插管1 min、插管3 min、拔管1 min、拔管3 min的MAP水平分别为(90.25±6.73)、(87.65±7.98)、(88.79±7.65)、(88.09±5.61)、(88.52±5.16)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),均低于对照组的(109.51±7.85)、(103.27±12.43)、(102.52±8.21)、(106.74±7.68)、(104.62±7.71)mm Hg,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组不良反应发生率3.23%低于对照组的19.35%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组麻醉总有效率96.77%均高于对照组的80.65%,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组全麻起效、维持全麻、术后苏醒时间分别为(1.61±0.23)、(100.59±6.72)、(17.99±3.52)min,均短于对照组的(2.93±0.41)、(123.61±7.85)、(36.87±4.16)min,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 针对腹腔镜等手术患者应用丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼喉罩全麻对血液动力学影响小,不良反应发生率低,麻醉效果良好,降低对机体损伤,值得推广应用。     

高流量吸氧与面罩吸氧在胸腔镜辅助食管癌根治术后氧疗效果对比

目的观察高流量湿化吸氧与常规面罩吸氧在食管癌患者行胸腔镜辅助食管癌根治术后治疗的临床效果。方法将36例择期行胸腔镜辅助下食管癌根治术后患者随机分为常规面罩吸氧对照组(A组)和高流量湿化吸氧治疗组(B组),对两组患者治疗2 h、6 h和24 h后的呼吸频率、动脉血气分析等指标进行比较,了解两种吸氧方式在食管癌患者行胸腔镜辅助食管癌根治术后治疗上的优劣。结果两组患者治疗2 h、6 h和24 h的呼吸频率、动脉血气分析发现,A组动脉氧饱和度、动脉血氧分压较B组降低,动脉血二氧化碳分压、呼吸频率较B组增高,两组比较差异有统计学意义(均P0.01)。结论与常规面罩吸氧比较,高流量湿化面罩吸氧可以使胸腔镜辅助食管癌根治术后患者有更满意的氧合效果,值得在临床上推广。     

气管插管型喉罩通气道与直接喉镜经口气管插管对血流动力学影响的比较

目的 气管插管型喉罩通气道（ILMA）为气管插管提供了一种新型途径，而且有望减轻气管插管时的心血管应激反应。但是，现有的研究结果并不一致。本研究目的在于：（1）进一步观察气管插管型喉罩通气道（ILMA）经口气管插管对血流动力学的影响；（2）证实经口气管插管时，气管插管型喉罩通气道（ILMA）是否能够比直接喉镜（DLS）产生较轻微的血流动力学反应。方法 择期整形外科手术患者53例，随机分为ILMA组和DLS组，经常规静脉诱导后气管插管。监测麻醉诱导前（基础值）、后，气管插管时和气管插管后5min内的血压（BP、收缩压SBP、舒张压DBP）和心率（HR）的变化。结果 ILMA组的平均气管插管操作时间较DLS组明显延长。气管插管后两组患者血压和心率均比麻醉诱导后明显升高，但血压的最大值未超过麻醉诱导前水平，而心率的最大值较麻醉诱导前明显升高。两组在各对应时问点的血压和心率无明显差异，血压和心率的最大值亦无明显差异。结论 在临床常用的全身麻醉深度下，ILMA和DLS经口气管插管操作引起的血流动力学反应相似。与DES相比较，ILMA引导经口气管插管并不具有减轻心血管反应的优点。     

A clinical comparison of the Laryngeal Tube™ and the Laryngeal Mask™ in spontaneously breathing anesthetized patients

Abstract: Background: The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) can be used in general anaesthesia without neuromuscular block. The laryngeal tube (LT) is a new airway device with similar airway features as LMA. LT is provided with a distal cuff to prevent regurgitation. In this study we compared the LMA and LT concerning patient and user aspects. Methods: Sixty patients with ASA (American Society of Anestesiologists) score 1–2 scheduled for minor surgery were randomized to be ventilated either through LMA or LT. After insertion, the number of insertion attempts, and “positioning” and “airway-assessment” was evaluated. The patients reported on “sore throat” after 30 and 60 minutes and the day after anaesthesia. Results: Gender and mean age were equal in both groups. The first insertion attempt was successful in 25 of 28 patients randomised to LMA and in 23 of 27 patients randomised to LT. LMA was evaluated to be easier in “positioning” whereas no difference in “sore throat” was reported. Conclusion: We found no difference between the LMA and the LT in terms user and patient friendliness and safety.     

Cardiovascular responses to insertion of the laryngeal mask

We have compared, in 40 healthy patients, the cardiovascular responses induced by laryngoscopy and intubation with those produced by insertion of a laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia was induced with thiopentone and maintained with enflurane and nitrous oxide in oxygen; vecuronium was used for muscle relaxation. Arterial pressure was measured with a Finapres monitor. The mean maximum increase in systolic arterial pressure after laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation was 51.3% compared with 22.9% for laryngeal mask insertion (p less than 0.01). Increases in maximum heart rate were similar, (26.6% v 25.7%) although heart rate remained elevated for longer after tracheal intubation. We conclude that insertion of the laryngeal mask airway is accompanied by smaller cardiovascular responses than those after laryngoscopy and intubation and that its use may be indicated in those patients in whom a marked pressor response would be deleterious.     

Removal of laryngeal mask airway: airway complications in children,anaesthetized versus awake*

The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) must be inserted during deep anaesthesia. There are no guidelines concerning the removal of LMA, i.e., in awake or anaesthetized patients. The aim of this randomized prospective study was to compare the incidence of respiratory complications after LMA removal in anaesthetized or awake paediatric patients. Sixty children (ASA PS I or II), ranging from 4 months to 12 years of age, were studied. In patients breathing spontaneously, anaesthesia was induced and maintained with nitrous oxide, oxygen and halothane. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 removal of LMA in awake patients, or group 2 removal of LMA in anaesthetized patients, i.e., in patients receiving halothane at an alveolar concentration of 2 MAC adjusted for age and oxygen for 5 min. In both groups, patients received 100% oxygen after removal of LMA. After removal the incidence of respiratory complications was highest (P < 0.05) in group 1. Therefore, in healthy children undergoing elective surgery, the authors conclude that it is safer to perform the LMA removal in anaesthetized patients.