Cookgas气管插管型喉罩用于预测困难气管插管的临床观察

Clinical Observation of Cookgas Intubating Laryngeal Airway in Anticipating Difficult Tracheal Intubation

目的比较经Cookgas气管插管型喉罩(CILA)纤维光导支气管镜(FOB)和视可尼喉镜(SOS)在预测困难气管插管时的临床效果。方法择期在全身麻醉下行整形外科手术的预测困难气管插管患者60例,随机分为FOB组(n=30)和SOS组(n=30)。麻醉诱导后,置入CILA,经CILA由FOB或SOS引导气管插管,记录CILA置入、气管插管次数和时间、CILA退出时间、气管插管成功率、FOB及SOS镜下声门的情况,并记录麻醉诱导前、后,气管插管过程中和气管插管后5min内的血压和心率变化。结果60例患者均成功置入CILA,FOB组28例首次气管插管成功,2例分别在第2和3次成功;SOS组18例1次插管成功,7例在第2次成功,5例颈部重度瘢痕患者插管失败,改用FOB引导完成插管。与FOB组比较,SOS组气管插管时间[(60.2±29.6)vs.(92.4±47.9)s]和喉罩退出时间[(104.6±39.9)vs.(130.0±51.9)s]显著延长(P<0.05)。气管插管对两组患者血液动力学的影响较轻。结论经CILA引导FOB和SOS均可安全有效地应用于预测困难气管插管患者,其中FOB引导气管插管的插管时间较短,成功率较高。

Objective To compare the clinical effects of Cookgas intubating laryngeal airway （CILA） in facilitating fiberoptic bronchoscope （FOB） and Shikani optical styler （SOS）-guided intubafions in anticipating difficult tracheal intubation. Methods Totally 60 anticipated difficult tracheal intubation patients undergoing selective plastic surgery under general anesthesia were allocated to FOB group （ n = 30 ） and SOS group （ n = 30）. After anesthesia induction and CILA insertion, the patients were treated with FOB or SOS-guided intubation via CILA. The time of intubation and CILA removal and the time and the success rate of CILA insertion were recorded. Noninvasive blood pressure and heart rate were recorded before and after anesthesia induction at CILA insertion, at intubation, at CILA removal, and every minute thereafter for 5 minutes. Results CILA was inserted successfully in all patients. The first intubafion attempt succeeded in all but two who succeeded in the second and the third attempt respectively in FOB group. In SOS group, 18 patients were successfully intubated in the first attempt, and 7 patients were successfully intubated in the second attempt; SOS failed in 5 patients with severe cervical scars, and then FOB was successfully used to intubate. The time of the intubation [ （60.2±29.6） vs. （92.4±47.9） s] and CILA removal [ （104.6±39.9） vs. （130.0±51.9） s] in SOS group were significantly longer than in FOB group （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. Hemodynamic changes during the intubation with CILA in these two groups were minimal. Conclusions FOB and SOS-guided tracheal intubation v/a CILA is safe and effective in anticipating the outcome of difficult airway management. Compare to SOS-guided intubation, the time of FOB-guided intubation is shorter and the success rate is higher.