食管引流型与标准型喉罩通气道用于正压通气的自身对照研究

目的采用随机自身对照设计方法比较食管引流型喉罩通气道(PLMA)和标准型喉罩通气道(SLMA)用于间歇正压通气的有效性。方法选择50例经美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状态分级标准分为1~2级、拟在全身麻醉下实施择期整形外科手术患者。在常规麻醉诱导后,顺序插入PLMA和SLMA,将通气罩内压充气至60cmH2O(1cm H2O=0.098kPa),评价两种喉罩通气道充气前后的肺通气满意度和气道密封压,同时进行光导纤维支气管镜(FOB)评分,确定通气罩的解剖位置。然后将潮气量设定为10ml/kg实施间歇正压通气,记录间歇正压通气后连续5次呼吸的平均呼潮气量和平均吸气峰压。结果在通气罩未充气情况下,插入PLMA后有46例(92%)患者获得了良好和尚可的肺通气效果,而插入SLMA后仅有22例(44%)患者获得了良好和尚可的肺通气效果;PLMA的气道密封压显著高于SLMA(P<0.05)。将通气罩内压充气至60cmH2O,采用PLMA的50例患者均获得良好的肺通气效果,但采用SLMA时仅有28例获得良好的肺通气效果;PLMA所需的充气量和充气后获得的气道密封压均显著高于SLMA(P均<0.05)。采用PLMA时所有患者的气道密封压均高于或等于采用SLMA时;采用PLMA时除2例患者外,其他患者所需的充气量也均高于采用SLMA时。PLMA通气罩位置的FOB评分显著低于SLMA(P<0.05)。采用PLMA维持气道的29例患者和采用SLMA维持气道的21例患者的平均呼潮气量、吸气峰压及维持气道时间差异均无显著性(P均>0.05)。结论与SLMA相比,PLMA可为正压通气提供更好的气道密封压,而且对声门和食管上端具有潜在的隔离作用,用于正压通气时PLMA比SLMA更有效、更安全。

An auto control comparison of the use of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and standard laryngeal mask airway for positive pressure ventilation

Objective To compare the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) and the standard laryngeal mask airway (SLMA) for intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) in a randomized auto control design. Methods Fifty adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 1-2, scheduled for elective plastic surgery under general anesthesia were recruited. After the routine intravenous anesthesia induction, the PLMA and the SLMA were inserted randomly in sequence into each patient and inflated to an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O (1 cm H2O=0.098 kPa), airway seal pressure and lung ventilation satisfaction were evaluated, and fiberoptic (FOB) scores of the cuff anatomic position were measured. The mean expired volume and the mean peak inspiratory pressure of five continuous breaths were calculated after IPPV with 10 ml/kg tidal volume was performed. Results Without cuff inflation, airway seal pressure was higher with the PLMA than with the SLMA (P<0.05), and adequate or acceptable lung ventilation was obtained in 46 (92%) patients with the PLMA, but only 22 (44%) patients with the SLMA. When the air volume required to obtain an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O, adequate lung ventilation was obtained in 50 patients with the PLMA, but only 28 patients with the SLMA, and the inflation volume and sequential airway seal pressure were higher with the PLMA than with the SLMA (both P<0.05), and the airway seal pressure with the PLMA was not less than with the SLMA in each patient. The ventilation volume was higher with the PLMA than with the SLMA, except in 2 patients. The FOB score of the cuff position was lower with the PLMA than with the SLMA (P<0.05). The mean expired tidal volume and the mean peak inspiratory pressure were not significantly different between 29 patients with the PLMA and 21 patients with the SLMA for airway maintenance during operation (both P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with SLMA, PLMA can achieve a higher airway seal pressure and potentially isolate the glottis and the upper esophagus, and is safer and more effective for positive pressure ventilation.