食道引流型喉管Ⅱ与双腔食管引流型喉罩用于全麻患者气道管理效果的比较  

Efficacy of laryngeal tube suction Ⅱ versus ProSeal laryngeal mask airway for airway management during general anesthesia

作　　者：王立中[1] 胡小霞[1] 常向阳[1] 徐文平[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江省嘉兴市妇幼保健院嘉兴市市立三一医院麻醉科,314000

出　　处：《中华麻醉学杂志》2011年第5期588-590,共3页Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology

摘　　要：目的 比较食道引流型喉管Ⅱ（LTSⅡ）与双腔食管引流型喉罩（PLMA）用于全麻患者气道管理的效果。方法择期手术全麻女性患者120例，年龄30—50岁，体重指数〈30kg／m^2，ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级，随机分为PLMA组和LTSⅡ组，每组60例。每组再随机分为2个亚组：PLMA控制呼吸组（PC组）和PLMA自主呼吸组（PS组）；LTSⅡ控制呼吸组（LC组）和LTSⅡ自主呼吸组（LS组）。记录置入成功情况，术前、手术开始后10min及术毕时控制呼吸患者PETCO2、气道峰压、肺顺应性和漏气率；自主呼吸患者呼吸平稳时呼气VY和PETCO2。拔管时观察呛咳、体动反应等发生情况，术后24h记录咽痛、舌麻、声嘶等不良反应的发生情况。结果所有患者均成功置入。控制呼吸和自主呼吸时与PLMA比较，应用LTSⅡ的患者气道峰压升高（P〈0．05），余通气指标差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；各组术后并发症的发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论PLMA用于全麻患者气道管理的效果优于LTSH。Objective To compare the efficacy of laryngeal tube suction Ⅱ（LTS Ⅱ） and ProSeal laryngeal mask airway （PLMA） for airway management during general anesthesia. Methods One hundred and twenty adult ASA Ⅰ or Ⅱ female patients, aged 30-50, with body mass index 〈 30 kg/m2 , undergoing general anesthesia for elective surgery were randomly divided into 2 groups （ n = 60 each） ： PLMA group and LTS Ⅱ group. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups ： PLMA controlled ventilation group （ group PC）, PLMA spontaneous breathing group （group PS）, LTS Ⅱ controlled ventilation group （group LC） and LTS Ⅱ spontaneous breathing group （group LS）. The rate of successful insertion was recorded. PETCO2, peak airway pressure, lung compliance and incidence of gas leakage during controlled ventilation were recorded before operation, 10 min after the start of operation and at the end of operation. The tidal volume and PET CO2 were recorded in patients breathing spontaneously when the breathing was stable. The bucking and body movement were observed during removal of LTS Ⅱ or PLMA. The side effects in 24 h after surgery were recorded. Results Insertion was successful in all the patients. During either spontaneous breathing or controlled ventilation, the peak airway pressure was significantly higher in the patients with LTS Ⅱ than in the patients with PLMA （ P 〈0. 05）, and there was no significant difference in the other ventilatory parameters between the two devices. There was no significant difference in the incidences of postoperative complications among the groups （ P 〉 0.05）. Conclusion The efficacy of PLMA for airway management is better than that of LTS Ⅱ during general anesthesia.

关 键 词：喉面罩 麻醉 全身 

分 类 号：R614[医药卫生—麻醉学]