首页> 外文期刊>Canadian journal of anesthesia: Journal canadien d'anesthesie >Less perilaryngeal gas leakage with SLIPA than with LMA-ProSeal in paralyzed patients.
【24h】

Less perilaryngeal gas leakage with SLIPA than with LMA-ProSeal in paralyzed patients.

机译:与瘫痪患者相比,与LMA-ProSeal相比,SLIPA减少了咽周气体的泄漏。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA) with the ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA-ProSeal) in mechanically ventilated paralyzed patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. METHODS: One hundred and one patients were allocated randomly to SLIPA (n = 50) or to LMA-ProSeal (n = 51) treatment groups. After induction of general anesthesia and insertion of the assigned supralaryngeal airway (SLA) device, we made note of the occurrence of any gastric insufflation and perilaryngeal leakage. We then evaluated the anatomical fit of the SLA device using a fibreoptic bronchoscope, and we assessed the airway sealing pressure and respiratory mechanics with change in head position and during peritoneal insufflation. After surgery, we evaluated the severity of postoperative sore throat and the presence of blood or regurgitated fluid on the SLA device. RESULTS: The insertion success rate, gastric insufflation, perilaryngeal leakage, anatomical fit, airway sealing pressure, respiratory mechanics, severity of sore throat, and incidence of blood and regurgitated fluid on the device were similar between the two groups. The incidence of perilaryngeal leakage with changes in the patient's head position was lower with the SLIPA group than with the LMA-ProSeal group (3/50 vs 11/51, respectively; P = 0.026). During peritoneal insufflation, perilaryngeal leakage did not occur with the SLIPA but occurred in four cases with the LMA-ProSeal (P = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Both the SLIPA and the LMA-ProSeal can be used effectively and without severe complications in paralyzed patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. However, the SLIPA offers the advantage of less perilaryngeal gas leakage than the LMA-ProSeal with change in head position and during insufflation of the peritoneal cavity. This trial is registered with ANZCTR (ACTRN12609000914268).
机译:目的:本研究的目的是比较接受腹腔镜妇科手术的机械通气瘫痪患者的咽喉气道(SLIPA)和喉罩面罩气道(LMA-ProSeal)。方法:将110位患者随机分为SLIPA(n = 50)或LMA-ProSeal(n = 51)治疗组。进行全身麻醉并插入指定的咽上气道(SLA)设备后,我们注意到发生了任何胃吹气和咽周漏。然后,我们使用纤维支气管镜评估了SLA设备的解剖结构,并评估了气道密封压力和呼吸力学,以及头部位置和腹膜吹入过程中的变化。手术后,我们评估了SLA设备上术后喉咙痛的严重程度以及血液或反流液的存在。结果:两组的插入成功率,胃充气,口周漏,解剖适应,气道密封压力,呼吸力学,喉咙痛的严重程度以及设备上血液和反流液的发生率相似。与IPA组相比,SLIPA组伴有患者头部位置改变的咽周漏发生率较低(分别为3/50和11/51; P = 0.026)。在腹膜吹入过程中,SLIPA并未发生唇周漏,但LMA-ProSeal发生了四例(P = 0.045)。结论:SLIPA和LMA-ProSeal均可在麻痹性腹腔镜妇科手术患者中有效使用,且无严重并发症。但是,与头部位置的变化和腹膜腔吹气相比,SLIPA具有比LMA-ProSeal少的唇周气体泄漏的优点。该试验已在ANZCTR(ACTRN12609000914268)中注册。

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