七氟烷与丙泊酚麻醉诱导喉罩置入条件的比较

Comparison on the Condition for Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Obtained by Sevoflurane VCB Inhaled

目的比较七氟烷和丙泊酚麻醉诱导喉罩置入的条件。方法行眼科手术的患者60例。8～12岁。ASAⅠ-Ⅱ级。随机分为两组：七氟烷组（S组）和丙泊酚组（P组）。S组采用单次潮气量法诱导，吸入8％七氟烷，P组患者静注丙泊酚2．0mg／kg，记录睫毛反射消失的时间，喉罩置入的时间和次数以及诱导时喉痉挛、呼吸抑制、咳嗽等不良反应的发生率。结果两组睫毛反射消失的时间无统计学差异，分别为S组（50．6±11．3）s，P组（47．8±7．1）s。S组喉罩置入较P组花费时间长（P〈0．05），1次喉罩置入成功几率低，为76．5％。两组之间喉痉挛、咳嗽等不良反应无显著差异（P〉0．05）。丙泊酚诱导呼吸抑制发生的几率要高于七氟烷组（P〈0．05）。结论丙泊酚和七氟烷均可作为喉罩置入的诱导用药，安全性和有效性并无差异。丙泊酚发生呼吸抑制的几率较高而七氟烷喉罩置入的时间更长。

Objective To compare the conditions for laryngeal mask airway （LMA） insertion obstained by sevoflurane VCB inhaled induction with propofol intravenous induction of anesthesia. Methods Sixty patients, aged 8 - 12 years, ASA Ⅰ - Ⅱ , undergoing general anesthesia for ophthalmologic operation were randomly divided into two groups with either a single vital capacity breath of sevoflurane 8 % or intravenous propofol 2.0 mg/kg. Time to loss of eyelash reflex, time to LMA insertion, numbers of attempts and the complications such as coughing , apnea and laryngospasm were recorded. Results The time to loss of eyelash reflex in the group of sevoflurane and group of propofol were （50.6± 11.3）s and（47.8 ± 7.1）s, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups. LMA was inserted more rapidly in patients in the group of propofol and required fewer attempts than the group of sevoflurane. The incidence of the complications such as coughing and laryngospasm was no difference between two groups.Apnea was higher in propofol group than sevoflurane group. Conclusion Both sevoflurane and propofol can be used effectively and safely for induction of anesthesia in ophthalmologic operation. Sevofluane has a lower incidence of apnea and a longer duration of LMA insertion.