妇科腹腔镜手术患者双管喉管和双管喉罩通气效果的比较

目的 比较双管喉管和双管喉罩用于妇科腹腔镜手术的通气效果.方法 拟行妇科腹腔镜手术患者50例,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,体重指数＜30 kg/m2,随机分为2组(n=25),双管喉管组(L组)和双管喉罩组(P组).两组均靶控输注异丙酚(血浆靶浓度3～5 μg/ml)和瑞芬太尼(血浆靶浓度4～6 ng/ml),静脉注射维库溴铵0.1 mg/kg,待BIS40～60时置人适宜型号的双管喉管或双管喉罩,置入成功后应用纤维支气管镜观察口咽部解剖结构显露分级情况.记录双管喉管或双管喉罩置入时间、一次置人情况和气道密封压.术中持续监测HR、SP、DP、MAP、SpO2、气道峰压(Ppeak)和呼气末二氧化碳分压(PETCO2),记录手术时间、气腹时间、清醒时间、拔除时间及术后24 h内咽部不良反应发生情况.结果 两组置入时间、一次置入成功率、气道密封压、手术时间、气腹时间、清醒时间、拔除时间及术后24 h内咽部不良反应发生率比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组术中血液动力学平稳,SpO2、Ppeak和PETCO2均在正常范围,且差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).与L组比较,P组纤维支气管镜下口咽部解剖结构更清晰(P＜0.01).结论 双管喉管可有效地用于妇科腹腔镜手术,安全性良好,其通气效果与双管喉罩无差异.     

妇科手术患者Guardian喉罩与Supreme喉罩气道管理效果的比较

目的 比较Guardian喉罩与Supreme喉罩用于妇科手术患者气道管理的效果.方法 择期全麻下行妇科手术患者120例,年龄19～80岁,体重50～70kg,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,随机分为2组:Supreme喉罩组(S组,n=59)和Guardian喉罩组(G组,n=61).麻醉诱导后置入4号喉罩,行机械通气.术中监测BP、HR、SpO2、PETCO2和Ppeak.记录喉罩置人情况、置入时间、纤维支气管镜检查分级、气道密封压、正常通气时(VT 8 ml/kg)的气道压、大潮气量(VT20 ml/kg)通气试验时的气道压和漏气的发生情况、术中口咽部漏气的发生情况、拔除喉罩时不良反应和术后咽喉部不良反应的发生情况、麻醉时间、手术时间、喉罩拔除时间和苏醒时间.结果 两组喉罩置入成功率、置入时间、正常通气时的气道压、大潮气量通气试验时的气道压、拔除喉罩时罩体带血和术后咽喉疼痛、声音嘶哑和吞咽困难的发生率、麻醉时间、手术时间、喉罩拔除时间和苏醒时间差异无统计学意义(P＜0.05).两组患者BP、HR、SpO2、Ppeak和PETCO2均在正常范围内.与S组比较,G组纤维支气管镜检查分级和气道密封压升高,大潮气量通气试验时漏气和术中口咽部漏气的发生率降低(P＜0.01).结论 Guardian喉罩和Supreme喉罩置入简单易行,气道密封效果好,可有效保证通气,对咽喉部的刺激小.Guardian喉罩用于妇科手术患者气道管理的效果更好.     

i-gel喉罩用于腹腔镜胆囊手术患者气道管理的效果

目的 评价i-gel喉罩用于腹腔镜胆囊手术患者气道管理的效果.方法 择期全麻下拟行腹腔镜胆囊手术患者120例,性别不限,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄34～62岁,体重45～90 kg,随机分为2组(n=60):ProSeal喉罩组(P组)和i-gel喉罩组(Ⅰ组).根据体重选择喉罩型号,麻醉诱导后置入喉罩,行机械通气,并经引流管放置胃管.记录喉罩置入次数、喉罩及胃管置入情况、纤支镜检查评分,测定喉罩密封压,观察术中口咽部漏气、低氧血症的发生情况.术中监测SpO2、PETCO2、气道峰压,观察拔除喉罩后恶心、呕吐、呛咳、声嘶、咽喉痛、返流误吸的发生情况,记录麻醉时间、手术时间、拔除喉罩时间及苏醒时间.结果 两组麻醉时间、手术时间、拔除喉罩时间及苏醒时间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组术中SpO2、PETCO2、气道峰压均在正常范围内.与P组比较,Ⅰ组喉罩首次置入成功率和纤支镜检查评分升高,喉罩置入时间缩短(P＜0.05).两组喉罩和胃管置入成功率均为100%;Ⅰ组和P组喉罩密封压比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);Ⅰ组咽喉痛发生率低于P组(P＜0.05),恶心呕吐、呛咳发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),两组无一例发生声嘶、返流误吸.结论 i-gel喉罩易于置入,气道密封性可靠,通气效果好,不良反应少,可安全有效地用于腹腔镜胆囊手术患者的气道管理.     

Supreme喉罩用于妇科腹腔镜手术患者气道管理的效果

目的 评价Supreme喉罩用于妇科腹腔镜手术患者气道管理的效果.方法 择期行妇科腹腔镜手术的患者80例,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄40～64岁,体重50～70 kg,身高158～170 cm,Mallampatis分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,随机分为2组(n=40):Supreme喉罩组(S组)和ProSeal喉罩组(P组).麻醉诱导后置入喉罩,行机械通气,并经引流管置入胃管.记录手术时间、气腹时间、清醒时间、喉罩置入时间、喉罩及胃管置入情况;记录喉罩囊内压为60 cm H2O时的充气量和气道密封压,并采用纤维支气管镜进行通气罩咽部解剖结构显露分级;术中监测BP、HR、ECG、SpO2、PETCO2,记录术后咽喉部不良反应的发生情况.结果 两组手术时间、气腹时间、清醒时间比较差异无统计意义(P＞0.05).两组术中BP、HR、SpO2、PETCO2、气道峰压均在正常范围,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).与P组比较,S组喉罩一次置入成功率、胃管一次置入成功率升高,喉罩置入时间缩短,通气罩咽部解剖结构显露分级升高,术后喉罩带血的发生率降低(P＜0.05);两组喉罩置入成功率均为100%,喉罩置入成功率、气道密封压、喉罩充气量比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 Supreme喉罩通气效果好,气道密封性可靠,易于置入,可安全有效地用于妇科腹腔镜手术患者的气道管理.     

全麻手术患者LMAS喉罩和SLIPA喉罩气道管理的效果

目的 比较全麻手术患者LMAS喉罩和SLIPA喉罩气道管理的效果.方法 择期全麻手术患者80例,年龄18～70岁,体重45～80 kg,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,随机分为2组(n=40):LMAS喉罩组(L组)和SLIPA喉罩组(S组).麻醉诱导后置入喉罩,行机械通气.记录MAP和HR、喉罩置入情况、喉罩置入时间、气道密闭压、最高气道压、平均气道压、置入喉罩后返流和误吸的发生情况、拔除喉罩后粘血的发生情况及术毕和术后24 h内咽痛的发生情况.结果 两组MAP和HR差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组喉罩全部置入成功,一次置入成功率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).与L组比较,S组喉罩置入时间延长,气道密闭压降低(P＜0.05),最高气道压和平均气道压差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组均未发生返流和误吸.与L组比较,S组喉罩粘血和术毕咽痛的发生率升高(P＜0.05),术后24 h内咽痛的发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 LMAS喉罩和SLIPA喉罩置入简单易行,气道密封效果好,可有效保证通气,不良反应少.LMAS喉罩用于全麻手术患者气道管理的效果更好.     

Supreme喉罩用于腹腔镜手术患者气道管理的效果

目的 评价Supreme喉罩用于腹腔镜手术患者气道管理的效果.方法 择期全麻下行腹腔镜手术的患者120例,性别不限,年龄35～60岁,体重48～85 kg,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,Mallampatis Ⅰ～Ⅲ级,随机分为2组(n=60):Supreme喉罩组(S组)和气管插管组(T组).S组根据患者体重选择喉罩型号,麻醉诱导后置入喉罩,并经引流管放置胃管,T组在直接喉镜下行气管插管.记录气管插管或喉罩置入时间及置人情况;记录S组胃管置入状况和喉罩气道密封压,并行纤维支气管镜检查评分,以评价喉罩对位情况;记录术中SpO2、PrrCO2和气道峰压(Ppeak),记录拔除气管导管或喉罩后不良反应的发生情况;记录手术时间、麻醉时间、拔管时间和苏醒时间.结果 与T组比较,S组喉罩置入时间、拔管时间和苏醒时间缩短,拔除喉罩后低氧血症、呛咳、咽喉痛的发生率降低(P<0.05);两组均无返流误吸发生.各时点spO2、PETCO2、Ppeak均在正常范围内,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).S组喉罩置入成功率和T组气管插管成功率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),S组喉罩气道密封压为(25±4)cm H2O,喉罩对位准确率95%,胃管放置成功率100%.结论 Supreme喉罩通气效果好,气道密封性可靠,拔除后不良反应少,可安全有效地用于腹腔镜手术患者的全麻气道管理.     

SLIPA喉罩和气管插管全麻在腹腔镜胆囊手术中的应用比较

目的 观察SLIPA喉罩与气管插管对患者血流动力学和气道阻力的影响.方法 择期全麻下腹腔镜胆囊手术患者60例,随机均分为SLIPA喉罩组(A组)和气管插管组(B组),记录插入喉罩/气管导管前(T0)、插入喉罩/气管导管后1 min(T1)、3 min(T2)和拔喉罩/气管导管前(T3)、拔喉罩/气管导管后1 min(T4)、3 min(T5)的SBP、DBP、HR和SpO2,同时在8 ml/kg潮气量下监测T1～T3时的平均气道压(Pmean)、气道峰压(Ppeak)和PETCO2,并观察有无反流误吸情况及术后咽喉部并发症.结果 与T0时相比,B组T1、T3、T4时SBP、DBP明显升高,HR明显增快,且相应时点均高于A组(P＜0.05);A组在T1、T2时的Pmean、Ppeak低于B组(P＜0.05);术后咽部不适患者B组(9例)明显多于A组(2例)(P＜0.05).结论 SLIPA喉罩通气用于腹腔镜胆囊手术时,患者应激反应小,术后咽喉部并发症少.     

腹腔镜手术患者CLMA喉罩、SLIPA喉罩与PLMA喉罩气道管理的效果

目的 比较经典型喉罩(CLMA喉罩)、SLIPA喉罩和食管引流型喉罩(PLMA喉罩)用于腹腔镜手术患者气道管理的效果.方法 择期行腹腔镜手术患者123例,年龄20～64岁,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,随机分为3组:CLMA组(C组,n=41)、SLIPA组(S组,n=42)和PLMA组(P组,n=40).麻醉诱导后置入喉罩,行间歇正压通气.测定气道密封压后实施气腹.评估喉罩置入难易性.记录首次喉罩置入情况、喉罩置入时间、麻醉恢复时间和不良反应的发生情况.于气腹前及气腹压至12 mm Hg时记录气道吸气峰压(PIP)及气道密封压＜PIP的发生情况.结果 C组有1例患者更换喉罩型号后置入成功,其余患者均首次喉罩置入成功,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).与C组比较,S组喉罩置入时间和麻醉恢复时间缩短,喉罩置入容易,P组喉罩置入时间延长,气道密封压升高,气道密封压＜PIP的患者减少(P＜0.05).与S组比较,P组喉罩置入时间和麻醉恢复时间延长,喉罩置入稍难,气道密封压升高,气道密封压＜PIP的患者减少(P＜0.05).与气腹前比较,各组气腹至12 mm Hg时PIP升高(P＜0.05).三组患者不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 CLMA喉罩、SLIPA喉罩和PLMA喉罩均可保证有效通气,不良反应少.SLIPA喉罩置入更简单,而PLMA喉罩气道密封效果好,更适用于腹腔镜手术患者.     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者ALMA喉罩和Supreme喉罩气道管理效果的比较:多中心、随机、对照研究

目的 比较ALMA喉罩和Supreme喉罩用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者气道管理的效果.方法 本研究为多中心、随机、对照研究.择期行腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者240例,ASA分级Ⅰ级或Ⅱ级,年龄18～64岁,体重50～70 kg,采用随机数字表法,将患者随机分为2组(n=120):Supreme喉罩组(S组)和ALMA喉罩组(A组).两组麻醉诱导后分别置入4号Supreme喉罩或ALMA喉罩,罩囊内注气后通过引流管漏气试验、胸骨上窝按压试验和胃管置入试验检查喉罩是否对位良好,对位良好后行机械通气.喉罩置入成功后行纤维支气管镜检查分级.记录喉罩置入成功情况、置入时间、气道密封压、口咽部漏气、拔除时间、苏醒时间、拔除喉罩时罩体带血和返流及术后咽喉部不良反应的发生情况.对气道管理效果和喉罩放置难易程度进行评分.结果 与S组比较,A组喉罩置入时间延长,气道密封压、纤维支气管镜检查分级、气道管理效果评分升高,口咽部漏气发生率降低(P＜0.05),喉罩置入成功率、引流管漏气率、胸骨上窝波动率、胃管置入成功率、喉罩置入难易程度评分、罩体带血、返流发生率、术后咽喉部不良反应发生率、喉罩拔除时间、苏醒时间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 ALMA喉罩和Sureme喉罩用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者均可有效通气,ALMA喉罩气道管理的效果更好.     

i-gel喉罩用于神经介入术患者气道管理的效果

目的 评价i-gel喉罩用于神经介入术患者气道管理的效果.方法 择期行神经介入术患者40例,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄20～60岁,体重指数＜30 kg/m2,随机分为2组(n=20):i-gel喉罩组(Ⅰ组)和ProSeal喉罩组(P组).TCI异丙酚和瑞芬太尼麻醉诱导后置入喉罩,行机械通气,维持PETCO2 35～40 mm Hg,SpO2 99%～100%.于麻醉诱导前、诱导后即刻、置入喉罩后1、3、5 min和拔除喉罩即刻,记录BP和HR;记录喉罩置入成功情况、置入时间、漏气压和气道峰压;记录喉罩置入与拔除过程中呛咳、喉痉挛、血迹残留、误吸的发生情况;术后24 h内随访患者咽痛、声音嘶哑、腹胀腹痛的发生.结果 两组患者BP和HR均在正常范围内.两组喉罩置入成功率、喉罩置入时间和气道峰压比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).与P组比较,Ⅰ组漏气压、血迹残留和咽痛的发生率降低(P＜0.05).结论 i-gel喉罩置入简单易行,气道密封效果好,可有效保证通气,不良反应少,可安全地用于神经介入术患者的气道管理.     

The laryngeal mask airway

A prototype size 3 laryngeal mask was used in 100 patients by 18 anaesthetists with no previous experience of its use. A clear and unobstructed airway was obtained in 98% of patients, without requiring support of the jaw, thus leaving the anaesthetists' hands entirely free. The patency of the airway did not deteriorate during the course of the anaesthetic. In 10 patients there was obstruction of the airway at the first attempt to place it without the introducer and this obstruction appeared to be as a result of downfolding of the epiglottis. Subsequent attempts at passage were successful in all 10 patients. The seal between the mask and the larynx was adequate for artificial ventilation of the patients, but the mean leak pressure was 1.7 kPa.     

The laryngeal mask airway

The laryngeal mask airway is an important addition to the anaesthetist's armamentarium, but its use is not without the possibility for misfortune. We encountered an unusual and potentially serious complication. A patient's epiglottis became trapped between the pliable grates in the mask portion of the laryngeal mask and partially obstructed his airway. Should this problem occur and remain unnoticed, in addition to the problem of airway obstruction during the anaesthetic, the oedematous epiglottis could be severely injured upon removal of the laryngeal mask. This, in turn, could result in airway obstruction requiring emergency treatment.     

The laryngeal mask airway

Two cases of emergency prehospital airway control using the laryngeal mask are described. The patients were trapped following road traffic accidents and limited access prevented tracheal intubation. The laryngeal mask airway may be a useful alternative to tracheal intubation in some cases of prehospital trauma care.     

The laryngeal mask airway

A new form of airway has recently been described, which is introduced blindly into the hypopharynx to form a seal around the larynx, so permitting spontaneous or positive pressure ventilation without penetration of the larynx or oesophagus. The further development of this new airway is described and the results of 18 months' clinical experience are presented. The airway was used successfully in 118 patients, 17 of whom received controlled ventilation of their lungs. It was used in place of the facemask in routine anaesthesia, and was of particular value in ophthalmic, dental and ear, nose and throat procedures and where difficulties with the airway were expected. The incidence of sore throat and other problems was low. Experience of more than 500 cases suggests that the laryngeal mask airway may have a valuable r?le to play in all types of inhalational anaesthesia, while its proven value in some cases of difficult intubation indicates that it may contribute significantly to the safety of general anaesthesia.     

Intubating laryngeal mask airway

The Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA) was introduced into clinical practice in 1997 following numerous clinical trials involving 1110 patients. The success rate of blind intubation via the device after two attempts is 88% in "routine" cases. Successful intubation in a variety of difficult airway scenarios, including awake intubation, has been described, with the overall success rate in the 377 patients reported being approximately 98%. The use of the ILMA by the novice operator has also been investigated with conflicting reports as to its suitability for emergency intubation in this setting. Blind versus visualized intubation techniques have also been investigated. These techniques may provide some benefits in improved safety and success rates, although the evidence is not definitive. The use of a visualizing technique is recommended, especially whilst experience with intubation via the ILMA is being gained. The risk of oesophageal intubation is reported as 5% and one death has been described secondary to the complications of oesophageal perforation during blind intubation. Morbidity described with the use of the ILMA includes sore throat, hoarse voice and epiglottic oedema. Haemodynamic changes associated with intubation via the ILMA are of minimal clinical consequence. The ILMA is a valuable adjunct to the airway management armamentarium, especially in cases of difficult airway management. Success with the device is more likely if the head of the patient is maintained in the neutral position, when the operator has practised at least 20 previous insertions and when the accompanying lubricated armoured tube is used.