...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Anesthesiology >Conditions for laryngeal mask airway placement in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure: a comparison between blind insertion and laryngoscope-guided insertion
【24h】

Conditions for laryngeal mask airway placement in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure: a comparison between blind insertion and laryngoscope-guided insertion

机译:从口咽泄漏压力角度讲喉罩气道放置的条件:盲法插入与喉镜引导插入之间的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Insertion under laryngoscopic guidance has been used to achieve ideal positioning of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA). However, to date, the efficacy of this technique has been evaluated only using fiberoptic evaluation, and the results have been conflicting. Other reliable tests to evaluate the efficacy of this technique have not been established. Recently, it has been suggested that the accuracy of LMA placement can be determined by clinical signs such as oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of LMA insertion under laryngoscopic guidance using OPLP as an indicator. After approved by the institutional ethics committee, a prospective comparison of 100 patients divided into 2 groups (50 with blind technique and 50 with the laryngoscope technique) were evaluated. An LMA (LarySeal?, Flexicare medical Ltd., UK) was inserted using the blind approach in the blind insertion group and using laryngoscopy in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group. The OPLP, fiberoptic position score, whether the first attempt at LMA insertion was successful, time taken for insertion, ease of LMA insertion, and adverse airway events were recorded. Data were presented as mean?±?standard deviation. The OPLP was higher in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group than in the blind insertion group (21.4?±?8.6 cmH2O vs. 18.1?±?6.1 cmH2O, p?=?0.031). The fiberoptic position score, rate of success in the first attempt, ease of insertion, and pharyngolaryngeal adverse events were similar between both groups. The time taken for insertion of the LMA was significantly longer in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group, compared to blind insertion group (35.9?±?9.5?s vs. 28.7?±?9.5?s, p??0.0001). Laryngoscope-guided insertion of LMA improves the airway seal pressure compared to blind insertion. Our result suggests that it may be a useful technique for LMA insertion. cris.nih.go.kr , identifier: KCT0001945 (2016-06-17).
机译:喉镜引导下的插入已被用于实现喉罩气道(LMA)的理想定位。但是,迄今为止,仅使用光纤评估就已经评估了该技术的有效性,并且结果存在矛盾。还没有建立评估该技术功效的其他可靠测试。最近,已经提出可以通过诸如口咽泄漏压力(OPLP)的临床体征确定LMA放置的准确性。这项研究的目的是评估在喉镜指导下使用OPLP作为指标的LMA插入的疗效。经机构伦理委员会批准后,对100例患者进行了前瞻性比较,分为2组(盲法50例,喉镜技术50例)。在盲插入组中使用盲法插入LMA(LarySeal?,Flexicare medical Ltd.,英国),在喉镜引导的插入组中使用喉镜插入。记录OPLP,纤维位置评分,是否首次成功插入LMA,插入时间,插入LMA的难易程度以及不良气道事件。数据表示为平均值±标准偏差。喉镜引导插入组的OPLP高于盲插入组(21.4±±8.6 cmH2O相对于18.1±±6.1 cmH2O,p <= 0.031)。两组的纤维位置评分,首次尝试成功率,插入的难易程度和咽喉不良事件相似。与盲插入组相比,在喉镜引导的插入组中插入LMA所需的时间明显更长(35.9?±?9.5?s与28.7?±?9.5?s,p?<?0.0001)。与盲孔插入相比,喉镜引导的LMA插入可改善气道密封压力。我们的结果表明,它可能是用于LMA插入的有用技术。 cris.nih.go.kr,标识符:KCT0001945(2016-06-17)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号