Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Hospital Universitario del Sureste, Arganda del Rey, Valdemoro, Madrid, Spain.
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013 Mar;30(3):119-23. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32835aba6a.
A comparison of the efficacy and safety of the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Supreme (LMAS) versus the LMA Proseal (LMAP) in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
To compare the LMAS with LMAP in terms of ventilatory efficacy, airway leak pressure (airway protection), ease-of-use and complications.
Prospective, single-blind, randomised, controlled study.
The Hospital del Sureste and Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, between May 2009 and March 2011. The Hospital del Sureste is a secondary hospital and Hospital Ramon y Cajal is a tertiary hospital.
Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were studied following informed consent. Inclusion criteria were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to III and age 18 or more. Exclusion criteria were BMI more than 40 kg m, symptomatic hiatus hernia or severe gastro-oesophageal reflux.
Anaesthesiologists experienced in the use of LMAP and LMAS participated in the trial. One hundred twenty-two patients were randomly allocated to LMAS or LMAP.
Our primary outcome measure was the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary outcomes were the time and number of attempts for insertion, ease of insertion of the drain tube, adequacy of ventilation and the incidence of complication. Patients were interviewed postoperatively to evaluate the presence of sore throat, dysphagia or dysphonia.
Two patients were excluded when surgery changed from laparoscopic to open. A total of 120 patients were finally included in the analysis. The mean OLP in the LMAP group was significantly higher than that in the LMAS group (30.7 ± 6.2 versus 26.8 ± 4.1 cmH2O;P < 0.01). This was consistent with a higher maximum tidal volume achieved with the LMAP compared to the LMAS (511 ± 68 versus 475 ± 55 ml; P = 0.04). The success rate of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMAS group than the LMAP group (96.7 and 71.2%, respectively; P < 0.01). The time taken for insertion, ease of insertion of the drain tube, complications and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events were similar in both groups.
The LMAP has a higher OLP and achieves a higher maximum tidal volume compared to the LMAS, in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The success of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMAS.
比较喉罩气道 Supreme(LMAS)与喉罩气道 Proseal(LMAP)在择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术的有效性和安全性。
比较 LMAS 与 LMAP 在通气效果、气道泄漏压(气道保护)、易用性和并发症方面的差异。
前瞻性、单盲、随机、对照研究。
马德里的 Sureste 医院和 Ramon y Cajal 医院,2009 年 5 月至 2011 年 3 月。Sureste 医院为二级医院,Ramon y Cajal 医院为三级医院。
签署知情同意书后,择期行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的患者入组。纳入标准为美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况 I 至 III 级,年龄 18 岁或以上。排除标准为 BMI 超过 40kg/m、有症状的食管裂孔疝或严重胃食管反流。
经验丰富的 LMAP 和 LMAS 麻醉医师参与了这项试验。122 例患者随机分配至 LMAS 或 LMAP 组。
我们的主要观察指标是口咽漏压(OLP)。次要观察指标为插入时间和尝试次数、引流管插入的难易程度、通气充分性和并发症发生率。术后对患者进行采访,以评估咽痛、吞咽困难或声音嘶哑的发生情况。
当手术由腹腔镜转为开腹时,有 2 例患者被排除。最终共有 120 例患者纳入分析。LMAP 组的平均 OLP 显著高于 LMAS 组(30.7±6.2 比 26.8±4.1cmH2O;P<0.01)。这与 LMAP 组获得的最大潮气量高于 LMAS 组相一致(511±68 比 475±55ml;P=0.04)。LMAS 组首次尝试插入的成功率高于 LMAP 组(96.7%比 71.2%;P<0.01)。两组患者的插入时间、引流管插入的难易程度、并发症和术后咽喉不良反应相似。
在择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者中,与 LMAS 相比,LMAP 具有更高的 OLP 和更大的最大潮气量。LMAS 组首次尝试插入的成功率更高。