...
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian journal of anesthesia: Journal canadien d'anesthesie >Gas leak and gastric insufflation during controlled ventilation: face mask versus laryngeal mask airway.
【24h】

Gas leak and gastric insufflation during controlled ventilation: face mask versus laryngeal mask airway.

机译:受控通气期间的漏气和胃吹入:面罩vs喉罩气道。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PURPOSE: To compare two airway management techniques, face mask (FM) with oropharyngeal airway and laryngeal mask airway (LMA), with respect to the effectiveness of positive pressure ventilation and airway maintenance. METHODS: After induction of anaesthesia, two airway management techniques (FM or LMA) and three peak pressures (20, 25 and 30 cm H2O) were randomly applied during controlled ventilation in 60 patients. Data collected included inspiratory and expiratory volumes and presence of gastro-oesophageal insufflation. Leak was calculated by subtracting the expiratory from the inspiratory volume, expressed as a fraction of the inspiratory volume. RESULTS: Expiratory volumes (mean +/- SD) at 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O for LMA ventilation were 893 +/- 260, 986 +/- 276 and 1006 +/- 262 respectively, and for FM ventilation 964 +/- 264, 1100 +/- 268 and 1116 +/- 261. Leak fractions at 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O for LMA ventilation were 0.21 +/- 0.15, 0.24 +/- 0.18 and 0.26 +/- 0.18 respectively, and for FM ventilation 0.14 +/- 0.09, 0.14 +/- 0.09 and 0.12 +/- 0.08. The frequency of gastro-oesophageal insufflation was 1.6%, 5% and 5% for the LMA and 5%, 15% and 26.6% for the FM for ventilation pressures of 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O respectively which was greater with LMA use. CONCLUSION: Ventilation was adequate in all patients using both techniques. Leak was pressure dependent and greater with LMA use. Most of the leak was vented to the atmosphere via the pharynx. Gastro-oesophageal insufflation was more frequent with ventilation using the face mask. LMA use with positive pressure ventilation would appear to be a better airway management method than the face mask.
机译:目的:比较正压通气和气道维护的有效性,将口罩(FM)与口咽气道和喉罩(LMA)两种气道管理技术进行比较。方法:60例患者在控制通气期间,随机麻醉后,随机应用两种气道管理技术(FM或LMA)和三种峰值压力(20、25和30 cm H2O)。收集的数据包括吸气量和呼气量以及胃食管充气的存在。通过从吸气量中减去呼气来计算泄漏,表示为吸气量的一部分。结果:LMA通气在20、25和30 cm H2O时的呼气量(平均值+/- SD)分别为893 +/- 260、986 +/- 276和1006 +/- 262,而FM通风964 +/- 264、1100 +/- 268和1116 +/-261。LMA通风在20、25和30 cm H2O下的泄漏分数分别为0.21 +/- 0.15、0.24 +/- 0.18和0.26 +/- 0.18通风0.14 +/- 0.09、0.14 +/- 0.09和0.12 +/- 0.08。 LMA的通气压力为20、25和30 cm H2O时,胃食管充气的频率分别为1.6%,5%和5%,FM的频率分别为5%,15%和26.6%,这在使用LMA时更大。结论:两种技术均对所有患者进行足够的通气。泄漏与压力有关,使用LMA时泄漏更大。大部分泄漏通过咽部排到大气中。使用面罩通气时,胃食管的吹气更为频繁。与面罩相比,在正压通气中使用LMA似乎是一种更好的气道管理方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 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