光棒和插管型喉罩在盲探气管插管中的比较  

A comparison between the light wand and intubating LMA during blind orotracheal intubation

作　　者：管剑峰[1,2] 朱俊峰[1] 盛忠贤[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学附属第六人民医院金山分院麻醉科,201500 [2]苏州大学研究生院

出　　处：《临床麻醉学杂志》2011年第4期381-382,共2页Journal of Clinical Anesthesiology

摘　　要：目的比较光棒和插管型喉罩在盲探气管插管中的应用效果。方法拟行气管内插管患者100例,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机均分为光棒组(A组)和插管型喉罩组(B组)。记录诱导前、诱导后、插管即刻、插管后1、3、5 min的SBP、DBP、HR、SpO2变化及首次插管成功率和总成功率、插管时间、并发症等。结果 A、B组首次插管成功率分别为76%和80%,插管总成功率分别为96%和98%,插管时间分别为(38.9±16.1)s和(76.1±18.0)s(P<0.05)。结论光棒和插管型喉罩在盲探气管插管中成功率高、并发症少,可安全用于盲探气管插管。Objective To compare the effect of the Light Wand and Intubating LMA during blind orotracheal intubation. Methods One hundred ASA Ⅰ or Ⅱ patients requiring tracheal intubation were randomly allocated to either the Light Wand group（group A） or the Intubating LMA group（group B）. Changes of hemodynamic parameters（SBP, DBP, HR and SpO2 ） were observed before and after anesthesia induction, at the time of intubation, 1 min, 3min and 5 min after intubation. The success ratio for the first attempt and total intubation, the duration of intubation and the complications were also observed. Results The successful rates of the first attempt and total intubation were 76% and 96% in group A and 80% and 98% in group B. The duration of intubation in group A and group B was （38.9±16.1）s and （76.1±18.0）s respectively （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Both Light Wand and Intubating LMA are safe methods in blind orotraeheal intubation with high success ratio and few complications.

关 键 词：光棒 插管型喉罩 盲探气管插管 

分 类 号：R614[医药卫生—麻醉学]