插管型喉罩air-Q与i-gel引导气管插管临床效果的比较

Comparison of the intubating laryngeal mask air-Q and i-gel for tracheal intubation

目的比较插管型喉罩air-Q和i-gel引导气管插管的临床效果。方法择期全麻气管插管手术患者80例,随机分为两组,分别采用air-Q(A组)和i-gel(I组)引导气管插管。记录喉罩置入次数和时间、盲探气管插管次数和时间。若盲探失败,改由纤维光导支气管镜经喉罩引导气道插管。结果 80例患者均成功置入喉罩,A组和I组喉罩置入时间分别为(19±5)s和(21±6)s,首次置入成功率分别为82.5%和77.5%。A组盲探气管插管的总时间显著短于I组[(95±28)s比(113±39)s](P<0.05),A组盲探气管插管的总成功率显著大于I组(92.5%比72.5%)(P<0.05)。所有盲探失败的病例均成功使用纤维光导支气管镜完成经喉罩引导气管插管。结论相比i-gel喉罩,air-Q喉罩盲探气管插管的成功率更高,时间更短。

Objective To compare the effectiveness of intubating laryngeal mask air-Q and i-gel for tracheal intubation. Methods Eighty patients scheduled for elective general anesthesia requiring tracheal intubation were randomly divided as air-Q group（ group A） and i-gel group（ group I）. After general anesthesia being induced and air-Q or i-gel being inserted,the patients were treated with blind tracheal intubation through air-Q or i-gel. The attempts and time for laryngeal mask airway insertion and blind tracheal intubation were recorded. If blind intubation failed,tracheal intubation was performed under fiberoptic bronchoscope via laryngeal mask airway. Results Laryngeal mask airway was inserted successfully in all 80 patients. The time for air-Q and i-gel insertion was（ 19 ± 5） s and（ 21 ± 6） s,respectively. And the rates of the first successful insertion were 82. 5% and 77. 5%,respectively. The time of blind intubation in group A was shorter than group I [（ 95 ± 28） s vs（ 113 ± 39） s]（ P〈0. 05）. The rate of the total successful blind intubation in group A was greater than group I（ 92. 5% vs72. 5 %）（ P〈0. 05）. In all cases with blind intubation failed,tracheal intubation was successful performed under fiberoptic bronchoscope via laryngeal mask airway. Conclusions The successful rate of blind intubation via air-Q is greater than i-gel. Meanwhile,the time for intubation via air-Q is shorter than i-gel.