Efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Classic, Streamlined Liner of Pharyngeal Airway and laryngeal mask airway ProSeal in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-1416.2010.08.026
- VernacularTitle:腹腔镜手术患者CLMA喉罩、SLIPA喉罩与PLMA喉罩气道管理的效果
- Author:
Chengwen LI
;
Kun WANG
;
Jihong SHI
;
Xiangang KONG
;
Chengjun SONG
;
Jian MENG
;
Kui CHEN
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Laryngeal masks;
Respiration,artificial;
Laparoscopy
- From:
Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology
2010;30(8):980-983
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway Classic (CLMA), Streamlined Liner of Pharyngeal Airway (SLIPA) and laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (PLMA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Methods One hundred and twenty-three ASA Ⅰ or Ⅱ patients aged 20-64 yr undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery were randomly divided into 3 groups: CLMA group (group C, n =41 ), SLIPA group (group S, n =42) and PLMA group (group P, n =40). Laryngeal mask was inserted after induction of anesthesia with sufentanil 0.3 μg/kg, atracurium 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 2 mg/kg. Mll the patients were ventilated with intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. Anesthesia was maintained with contiunous infusion of propofol 6-8 mg· kg-1· h-1 and with supplementary administration of sufentsnil 0.1-0.2 μg/kg and atracurium 0.2 mg/kg as required. The degree of difficulty in inserting the laryngeal mask was evaluated. The rate of successful placement at first attempt, device placement time, recovery time and complications were recorded . Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and the number of patients with an airway sealing pressure less than PIP were recorded before pneumoperitoneum and when intra-abdominal pressure achieved 12 mm Hg. Results The placement was easier and the placement time and recovery time were significantly shorter in group S, and the placement time was significantly longer,the airway sealing pressure was significantly higher and the number of patients with an airway sealing pressure less than PIP was lower in group P than in group C ( P ＜ 0.05). The placement time and recovery time were significantly longer, the placement was harder, the airway sealing pressure was significantly higher, and the number of patients with an airway sealing pressure less than PIP was lower in group P than in group S ( P ＜ 0.05). PIP was significantiy higher when intra-abdominal pressure achieved 12 mm Hg than that before pneumoperitoneum in all the three groups ( P ＜ 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications and rate of successful placement at first attempt among the three groups ( P ＞ 0.05). Conclusion All the three airway devices can provide adequate ventilation during operation, with fewer complications. SLIPA placement is easiest. PLMA can assure good airway sealing and is most suitable for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.
