CAJ | 학술논문

目的比较全麻手术患者LMAS喉罩和SLIPA喉罩气道管理的效果.方法择期全麻手术患者80例,年龄18～70岁,体重45～80 kg,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,随机分为2组(n=40):LMAS喉罩组(L组)和SLIPA喉罩组(S组).麻醉诱导后置入喉罩,行机械通气.记录MAP和HR、喉罩置入情况、喉罩置入时间、气道密闭压、最高气道压、平均气道压、置入喉罩后返流和误吸的发生情况、拔除喉罩后粘血的发生情况及术毕和术后24 h内咽痛的发生情况.结果两组MAP和HR差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组喉罩全部置入成功,一次置入成功率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).与L组比较,S组喉罩置入时间延长,气道密闭压降低(P＜0.05),最高气道压和平均气道压差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组均未发生返流和误吸.与L组比较,S组喉罩粘血和术毕咽痛的发生率升高(P＜0.05),术后24 h内咽痛的发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 LMAS喉罩和SLIPA喉罩置入简单易行,气道密封效果好,可有效保证通气,不良反应少.LMAS喉罩用于全麻手术患者气道管理的效果更好.
목적 비교전마수술환자LMAS후조화SLIPA후조기도관리적효과.방법 택기전마수술환자80례,년령18～70세,체중45～80 kg,ASA분급Ⅰ혹Ⅱ급,수궤분위2조(n=40):LMAS후조조(L조)화SLIPA후조조(S조).마취유도후치입후조,행궤계통기.기록MAP화HR、후조치입정황、후조치입시간、기도밀폐압、최고기도압、평균기도압、치입후조후반류화오흡적발생정황、발제후조후점혈적발생정황급술필화술후24 h내인통적발생정황.결과 량조MAP화HR차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).량조후조전부치입성공,일차치입성공솔차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).여L조비교,S조후조치입시간연장,기도밀폐압강저(P＜0.05),최고기도압화평균기도압차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).량조균미발생반류화오흡.여L조비교,S조후조점혈화술필인통적발생솔승고(P＜0.05),술후24 h내인통적발생솔차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).결론 LMAS후조화SLIPA후조치입간단역행,기도밀봉효과호,가유효보증통기,불량반응소.LMAS후조용우전마수술환자기도관리적효과경호.
Objective To compare the efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme (LMAS) and Streamlined Liner of the pharynx Airway (SLIPA) in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Methods Eighty ASA Ⅰ or Ⅱ patients aged 18-70 yr weighing 45-80 kg undergoing general anesthesia were randomly divided into 2 groups ( n = 40 each): group LMAS and group SLIPA. Pharyngeal airway was inserted after induction of anesthesia with fentanyl 3μg/kg and propofol 2.0-2.5 mg/kg. MAP, HR, number of insertion, rate of successful placement at first attempt, placement time, airway sealing pressure, peak and mean airway pressure and side effects were recorded. Results There were no significant differences in MAP, HR and rate of successful placement at first attempt between the two groups. The placement time was significantly longer, the airway sealing pressure lower and the incidence of side effects higher in SLIPA group than in LMAS group. There was no significant difference in the peak and mean airway pressure between the 2 groups. Conclusion Both LMAS and SLIPA can assure good airway sealing and adequate ventilation. The complication is rare. The efficacy of LMAS is better.