普通喉罩与一次性喉罩的放置比较

目的本研究比较了普通喉罩和一次性喉罩放置的成功率,解剖位置、口咽漏气压和并发症。方法择期手术的患者120例,随机分为两组,每组60人。Ⅰ组用普通喉罩,Ⅱ组用一次性喉罩。男性患者用4号喉罩,女性患者用3号喉罩。记录拿起喉罩到插管成功再建立气道的时间。然后用纤维支气管镜通过喉罩的通气管,检查声门、会厌的位置。测口咽漏气压。麻醉维持吸入七氟醚,静脉持续注射瑞芬太尼。术毕拔除喉罩。记录喉罩上有无染血。术后2h随访,记录咽痛、说话、吞咽困难等并发症。结果普通喉罩插管成功率为94.3%,一次性喉罩插管成功率为96.6%。普通喉罩与一次性喉罩在插管成功率、建立有效气道的时间、口咽漏气压、喉罩的位置、染血、术后咽痛差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者均无失声、吞咽困难。结论普通喉罩与一次性喉罩临床使用效果相似,一次性喉罩可以替代普通喉罩在临床使用。

Objective To investigate success ratio, anatomy position, air leakage pressure and complications between reusable laryngeal mask LMA classic and single-use LMA Unique. Methods 120 patients for selective surgery were randomized into 2 groups. There were 60 patients in each group. Patients in group Ⅰ were inserted LMA classic, those in group Ⅱ were inserted LMA Unique. Size 4 were used in male and size 3 in female patients. Insertion time and oralpharyngeal leakage pressure were recorded. A fiberoptic bronchoscope was ap- plied to assess anatomical position of epiglottis and glottis. Laryngeal mask was removed when surgery finished. Blood staining on LMA and sore throat,dysphagia,dysphonia 2 hr after surgery were recorded. Results Success ratio of LMA classic and LMA Unique were 94.3% and 96. 6%. There was no significant difference of success ratio, effective airway time, oralpharyngeal leakage pressure, anatomy position of LMA, blood staining, sore throat between 2 groups （ P 〉 0. 05 ） No dysphagia and dysphonia observed. Conclusion LMA classic and LMA Unique were similar in clinical using.