■在本研究中,我们假设喉罩气道(LMA)保护器提供的口咽部渗漏压(OLP)高于LMAProSeal.因此,我们计划这项研究以OLP为主要目标,插入特征为次要目标,比较LMAProSeal和LMAProSeal的临床表现.
■90名男女患者,18-70岁,随机分为PS组(LMAProSeal)和P组(LMA保护者)。麻醉诱导后,设备是按照组分配插入的。将两种装置的OLP作为主要目标。次要目标,如插入时间,易于插入,所需的尝试次数,光纤视图分级,获得60cmH2O的袖带压力(CP)所需的空气量(mL),以及所需的CP调整和并发症,如果有的话,也注意到了。使用coGuide统计软件分析数据,版本1(BDSS公司班加罗尔,卡纳塔克邦,印度)。
■使用LMA保护剂的OLP中位数(四分位数间距)明显高于使用LMAProSeal的OLP[33.00(27.0,36.0)与[29.50(26.0,32.0)(P=0.009)]。PS组首次尝试成功率为95.4%(42/44),P组首次尝试成功率为93%(40/43)。易于插入,两组之间的光纤视图分级没有差异。PS组1例胃管放置失败,P组3例胃管放置失败(P=0.606)。获得60cmH2O的CP所需的空气(mL)的中位数在PS组为26.5(20,28),在P组为12(8,13)(95%置信区间[CI]=10.808-14.575)(P<0.001)。在所有时间点,CP明显增高,PS组比P组需要更多的CP调整(P<0.001)。两组之间在1和24小时的血液染色和术后咽喉痛的发生率没有差异。
■LMAProtector提供了明显更高的OLP和较少的CP调整要求,但可比较的首次尝试成功率,平均插入时间,光纤视图,与LMAProSeal相比,插入胃管。
UNASSIGNED: In the present study, we hypothesised that the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Protector would provide higher oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) than LMA ProSeal. Thus, we planned this study to compare the clinical performance of LMA Protector and LMA ProSeal in terms of OLP as a primary objective and insertion characteristics as secondary objectives.
UNASSIGNED: Ninety patients of either gender, aged 18-70 years, were randomised into groups PS (LMA ProSeal) and P (LMA Protector). Following anaesthetic induction, the device was inserted as per group allocation. OLP of both devices was taken as a primary objective. Secondary objectives such as insertion time, ease of insertion, number of attempts required, fibre-optic view grading, amount of air (mL) required to get a cuff pressure (CP) of 60 cm H2O, and CP adjustment required and complications, if any, were also noted. Data were analysed using coGuide statistics software, Version 1 (BDSS Corp. Bangalore, Karnataka, India).
UNASSIGNED: The median (interquartile range) OLP was significantly higher with LMA protector than with LMA ProSeal [33.00 (27.0, 36.0) versus [29.50 (26.0, 32.0) (P = 0.009)]. First-attempt success rate was 95.4% (42/44) in group PS and 93% (40/43) in group P. Insertion time, ease of insertion, and fibre-optic view grading were not different between the groups. Gastric tube placement failed in one patient in group PS and in three patients in group P (P = 0.606). The median amount of air (mL) required to get a CP of 60 cm H2O was 26.5 (20, 28) in group PS and 12 (8,13) in group P (95% confidence interval [CI] =10.808-14.575) (P < 0.001). At all time points, CP was significantly higher, and more CP adjustments were needed in group PS than in group P (P < 0.001). Incidence of blood staining and post-operative sore throat at 1 and 24 h were not different between the groups.
UNASSIGNED: LMA Protector provided a significantly higher OLP and less requirement of CP adjustments but comparable first-attempt success rate, mean insertion time, fibre-optic view, and gastric tube insertion as compared to LMA ProSeal.