首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Anesthesiology Research and Practice >Comparison of the Disposable Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway and the Disposable I-gel in Anaesthetized Paralyzed Adults: A Randomized Prospective Study
【2h】

Comparison of the Disposable Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway and the Disposable I-gel in Anaesthetized Paralyzed Adults: A Randomized Prospective Study

机译:麻醉瘫痪成年人中咽部气道的一次性流线型衬管和一次性I型凝胶的比较:一项随机前瞻性研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Introduction. This study compared streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) and I-gel noninflatable, single-use, supraglottic airway device (SAD) performance in anesthetized, paralyzed adults. Methods. Eighty adults (ASA physical statuses I–III) who were undergoing elective procedures under general anesthesia with an SAD were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Subjects were randomly and evenly assigned to the SLIPA or I-gel group for intraoperative airway management. Ease and number of insertions, insertion time, oropharyngeal sealing pressure, hemodynamic response, oxygen saturation (SpO2), end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2), and peri- and postoperative complications were examined. Results. The SLIPA and I-gel devices were successfully inserted in 100% and 95% of subjects, respectively. In two I-gel subjects (5%), ventilation was not possible after two attempts, but a size 55 SLIPA was successfully inserted in both cases. Forty-two and 38 patients were ultimately included in the SLIPA and I-gel groups, respectively. Insertion time was significantly shorter with the SLIPA (11.19 ± 3.03 s) than with the I-gel (15.05 ± 6.37 s, P = 0.003). Oropharyngeal sealing pressure was significantly higher in SLIPA (28.76 ± 3.11 cmH2O) than in I-gel (25.9 ± 3.65 cmH2O) subjects (P = 0.001). Blood staining occurred more frequently in SLIPA (n = 8, 19.0%) than in I-gel (n = 5, 13.2%) patients (P < 0.01). Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, SpO2, and EtCO2 were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion. Although blood staining incidence was higher, SLIPA insertion was easier and faster than I-gel insertion. The SLIPA provided better airway sealing pressure. Both devices had similar mechanical ventilation and oxygenation characteristics and comparable hemodynamic stability. Both noninflatable SADs are useful, but SLIPA rapid insertion and good airway sealing make it an effective alternative to the I-gel.
机译:介绍。这项研究比较了麻醉的麻痹成人中咽喉气管的流线型衬管(SLIPA)和I-gel一次性充气,声门上气道器械(SAD)的性能。方法。该前瞻性,随机,单盲研究纳入了80名在全身麻醉下使用SAD进行择期手术的成年人(ASA身体状态为I–III)。将受试者随机平均分配到SLIPA或I-gel组进行术中气道管理。检查插入的简便性和次数,插入时间,口咽密封压力,血液动力学响应,血氧饱和度(SpO2),潮气末CO2(EtCO2)以及围手术期和术后并发症。结果。 SLIPA和I-gel装置分别成功插入100%和95%的受试者中。在两名I-gel受试者(5%)中,两次尝试后均无法通气,但在两种情况下均成功插入了55号SLIPA。最终分别将42例和38例患者纳入SLIPA和I-gel组。 SLIPA(11.19±3.0319s)的插入时间比I-gel(15.05±6.37 s,P = 0.003)显着缩短。 SLIPA(28.76±3.11 cmH2O)的口咽密封压力显着高于I-gel(25.9±3.65 cmH2O)受试者(P = 0.001)。与I-gel(n = 5,13.2%)患者相比,SLIPA(n = 8,19.0%)的血液染色发生率更高(P <0.01)。两组之间的心率,平均动脉血压,SpO2和EtCO2均无显着差异。结论。尽管血液染色发生率较高,但SLIPA插入比I-gel插入更容易,更快。 SLIPA提供了更好的气道密封压力。两种设备都具有相似的机械通气和充氧特性以及相当的血液动力学稳定性。两种不可充气的SAD都很有用,但是SLIPA的快速插入和良好的气道密封性使其成为I-gel的有效替代品。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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