期刊文献+

美迪斯可弯曲喉罩与Ambu AuraFlex可弯曲喉罩在小儿眼科手术中的比较 被引量:1

Comparison of Medis Flexible Laryngeal Mask Airway and Ambu AuraFlex Flexible Laryngeal Mask Airway in Pediatric Ophthalmic Surgeries
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的比较美迪斯可弯曲喉罩与Ambu AuraFlex可弯曲喉罩应用于小儿眼科手术麻醉的效果。方法择期行全身麻醉眼科手术患儿80例,性别不限,ASAⅠ~Ⅱ级,年龄1~5岁,体重≥10kg,术前评估无困难气道指征,采用随机数字表法将患儿分为美迪斯喉罩组(M组)与Ambu AuraFlex喉罩组(A组)。记录两组喉罩置入耗时、置入次数、手指引导置入率、置入难度、口咽部漏气压、纤维支气管镜下对位情况及术后有无喉罩沾血、声音嘶哑和咽部疼痛等并发症情况。结果M组气道密封压高于A组(P<0.05),但M组置管时间及手指引导置入率均高于A组(P<0.05)。两组在置入次数、置入难度、纤维支气管镜对位分级等指标比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),在术后喉罩沾血、声音嘶哑和咽部疼痛等方面比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论美迪斯可弯曲喉罩气道密封压高于Ambu AuraFlex可弯曲喉罩;但AmbuAuraOnce可弯曲喉罩置入耗时及食指引导置入率均低于美迪斯可弯曲喉罩。 Objective To compare the clinical effect of Medis flexible laryngeal mask airway(FLMA)and Ambu AuraFlex FLMA in pediatric ophthalmic surgeries.Methods 80 patients,aged 1-5ys,ASAⅠ-Ⅱ,≥10kg,no difficult airway characteristics,were enrolled in this study.They were randomly divided into Group M(Medis FLMA)and Group A(Ambu AuraFlex FLMA).Recorded the insertion time,attempts,finger assistance,insertion difficulty,oropharyngeal leak pressure(OLP),fiberoptic grade of view and complications such as blood stain,hoarseness and sore throat.Results Group M showed higer OLP than Group A(P<0.05),but Group M needed longer insertion time and more finger assistance than Group A(P<0.05).There were no statistical differences between the two groups in attempts,fiberoptic grade of view,insertion difficulty and those complications.Conclusion Medis FLMA showed higher OLP than Ambu AuraFlex FLMA,but Medis FLMA needed more insertion time and finger assistance than Ambu AuraFlex FLMA.
作者 许增华 张建敏 王芳 XU Zenghua;ZHANG Jianmin;WANG Fang(Department of Anesthesiology,Beijing Children’s Hospital,Capital Medical University,National Center for Children’s Health,Beijing 100045,China)
出处 《医学研究杂志》 2022年第3期92-94,23,共4页 Journal of Medical Research
关键词 美迪斯可弯曲喉罩 Ambu AuraFlex可弯曲喉罩 气道管理 儿童 Medis flexible laryngeal mask airway Ambu AuraFlex flexible laryngeal mask airway Airway management Pediatric
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献22

  • 1REISSMANN H, POTHMANN W, FOLLEKRUG B, et al. Resis- tance of laryngeal mask airway and tracheal tube in mechanically ventilated patients [ J ]. Br J Anaesth, 2000,85 (3) : 410-416. DOI : 10.1093/bja/85.3.410.
  • 2JAGANNATHAN N, RAMSEY MA, WHITE MC, et al. An update on newer pediatric supraglottic airways with recommendations for clinical use [J]. Paediatr Anaesth, 2015, 25 (4) : 334-345. DOI: 10.1111/pan.12614.
  • 3PATKI A. Laryngeal mask airway vs the endotracheal tube in paedi- atric airway management: a meta-analysis of prospective randomised controlled trials [J]. Indian J Anaesth, 2011,55 (5) : 537-541. DOI : 10.4103/0019-5049.89900.
  • 4SANUKI T, NAKATANI G, SUGIOKA S, et al. Comparison of the Ambu AuraFlex with the laryngeal mask airway flexible : a manikin study [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011,69 (7) : e269-e272. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.117.
  • 5SEBBANE M, CHANQUES G, CISSE M, et al. Flexible laryngeal mask airway use during surgical burn management with head mobili- sation : a feasibility study [ J ]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim, 2010,29 (4) : 269-273. DOI : 10.1016/j.annfar.2009.10.024.
  • 6SAFAEIAN R, HASSANI V, MOVASAGHI G, et al. Postoperative respiratory complications of laryngeal mask airway and tracheal tube in ear, nose and throat operations [J ]. Anesth Pain Med, 2015, 24,5(4) :e25111. DOI: 10.5812/aapm.25111.
  • 7YU SH, BEIRNE OR. Laryngeal mask airways have a lower risk of airway complications compared with endotracheal intubation : a sys- tematic review [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2010, 68 (10) :2359- 2376. DOI : 10.1016/j.joms.2010.04.017.
  • 8TORDOFF SG, SCOTT S. Blood contamination of the laryngeal mask airways and laryngoscopes-what do we tell our patients? [J]. Anaesthesia, 2002,57 (5) : 505-506.
  • 9李春华,陈锡明.小儿正压通气时气道-食管双管喉罩套囊不同压力的选择[J].中华麻醉学杂志,2008,28(11):1051-1052. 被引量:2
  • 10公文华,刘晓梅,李东亮,张丽.患者肌松条件对喉罩置入术的影响[J].中华麻醉学杂志,2009,29(4):381-382. 被引量:28

共引文献25

同被引文献17

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部