首页|BlockBuster喉上通气装置与Supreme喉罩通气道在腹腔镜手术患者气道管理中应用效果比较

BlockBuster喉上通气装置与Supreme喉罩通气道在腹腔镜手术患者气道管理中应用效果比较

扫码查看
目的 比较BlockBuster喉上通气装置与Supreme喉罩通气道在全身麻醉下择期腹腔镜手术患者气道管理中的应用效果及安全性。方法 2016年4月—2017年3月首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院、河南省人民医院、河北医科大学第四医院行全身麻醉下择期腹腔镜手术患者118例,根据术中使用的通气装置分为BlockBuster组60例(BlockBuster喉上通气装置)和Supreme组58例(Supreme喉罩通气道),比较2组通气装置插入时间、插入成功率、定位及性能情况(通气试验阳性率、胸骨上凹试验阳性率、胃管插入试验阳性率、气道密封压、镜检定位分级)、位置调整情况、胃液引流量、通气罩充气量、手术时间、通气装置应用时间、腹腔镜气腹压及术中并发症(漏气、气道梗阻、通气罩染血、口腔活动性出血、反流、误吸)、术后并发症(咽痛、吞咽困难)发生情况。结果 BlockBuster组通气装置气道密封压[(29。5±4。5)cmH2O]高于Supreme组[(27。0±3。3)cmH2O](t=3。436,P<0。001),首次、2次、总体插入成功率及插入时间、通气试验阳性率、胸骨上凹试验阳性率、胃管插入试验阳性率、镜检定位分级良好比率、位置调整比率、胃液引流量、通气罩充气量与Supreme组比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0。05)。BlockBuster组手术时间、通气装置应用时间、腹腔镜气腹压,术中漏气、气道梗阻、通气罩染血、口腔活动性出血、反流、误吸及术后咽痛、吞咽困难比率与Supreme组比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0。05)。结论 BlockBuster喉上通气装置和Supreme喉罩通气道均是全身麻醉下择期腹腔镜手术中安全、有效的气道管理工具,但BlockBuster喉上通气装置的气道密封性能优于Supreme喉罩通气道。
Comparison of the efficacy of supraglottic airway device BlockBuster versus laryngeal mask airway Supreme for airway management in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of BlockBuster supraglottic airway device(SAD)versus Supreme laryngeal mask airway(LMA)for airway management during general anesthesia in adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery.Methods A total of 118 adult patients were scheduled for elective laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia in Beijing Friendship Hospital of Capital Medical University,Henan Provincial People's Hospital and the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University from April 2016 to March 2017,and were divided into BlockBuster group(n=60)and Supreme group(n=58).Two groups were compared in terms of ventilation device insertion time,insertion success rate,positioning and function(positive ventilation test,positive suprasternal recess test,positive gastric tube insertion test,oropharyngeal leak pressure,microscopic positioning grading),rate of positions to be adjusted,gastric fluid drainage volume,ventilation mask inflation volume,surgery duration,applying duration of ventilation devices,laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum pressure,intraoperative complications(air leakage,airway obstruction,blood staining of ventilation mask,active oral bleeding,regurgitation,aspiration),and postoperative complications(sore throat,dysphagia).Results The oropharyngeal leak pressure was significantly higher in BlockBuster group[(29.5± 4.5)cmH2O]than that in Supreme group[(27.0±3.3)cmH2O](t=3.436,P<0.001).There were no significant differences in the success rates of insertion at the first,the second and overall attempts,insertion time,positive rate of ventilation,positive rate of suprasternal recess test,positive rate of gastric tube insertion,rate of good microscopic positioning grade,rate of positions to be adjusted,gastric fluid draining volume,ventilation mask inflation volume,surgery duration,applying duration of ventilation devices,laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum pressure,air leakage,airway obstruction,blood staining of ventilation mask,active oral bleeding,regurgitation,aspiration,and postoperative sore throat and dysphagia between two groups(P>0.05).Conclusion Both SAD BlockBuster and LMA Supreme are safe and effective for airway management in adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery,but SAD BlockBuster is superior to LMA Supreme in oropharyngeal leak tightness.

laparoscopic surgerygeneral anesthesiaairway managementBlockBuster supraglottic airway deviceSupreme laryngeal mask airway

高学、张加强、张辉、李超、申军梅、苏凯、薛富善、田鸣

展开 >

首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院麻醉科,北京 100050

河南省人民医院郑州大学人民医院麻醉与围术期医学科,河南郑州 450003

河北医科大学第四医院麻醉科,河北石家庄 050011

腹腔镜手术 全身麻醉 气道管理 BlockBuster喉上通气装置 Supreme喉罩通气道

首都卫生发展科研专项项目北京市卫生健康科技成果和适宜技术立项项目

2018-4-1116BHTPP2022081

2024

中华实用诊断与治疗杂志
中华预防医学会 河南省人民医院

中华实用诊断与治疗杂志

CSTPCD
影响因子:1.276
ISSN:1674-3474
年,卷(期):2024.38(2)
  • 19