摘要
目的比较使用Maeinlosh镜片左侧磨牙（LM）、右侧磨牙（RM）和正中入路（ML）时联用喉外按压（OELM）喉镜显露和气管插管难易程度。方法选择200例ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级，拟在全麻气管插管下行择期手术患者，异丙酚2～3mg/kg和维库溴铵0．1mg／kg诱导后随机采用LM、RM和ML3种喉镜入路．记录使用和不使用OELM时各种喉镜置入时声门显露程度。插管难易程度用因难插管评分（IDS）进行评估。结果喉镜显露评分LM法显著好于ML法和RM法（P〈0．01），而ML法又好于RM法（P〈0．01）。LM法和ML法IDS评分较RM法低（P〈0．05），而LM法和ML法IDS评分差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05），即LM法和ML法可提供较好的气管插管条件。结论左侧磨牙法联用OELM可提供较好的喉镜显露和气管插管条件，可作为困难气道的一种新选择。
Objective To compare the laryngoscopic view and ease of intubation with the right molar, left molar and midline approach with application of optimal external laryngeal manipulation （OELM）. Methods Study was undertaken in 200 patients undergoing elective surgery. After standardized induction of anesthesia and muscle relaxation,three consecutive laryngoscopies were carried out by midline （ML） ,right molar（RM） and left molar（LM） approach in a randomized sequence. The glottic view were recorded for each approach with OELM ,followed by oral endotracheal intubation. The ease of intubation was assessed by Intubation difficulty scale（IDS） score. Results Laryngeal view scores were significantly better with LM approach than either ML or RM approches （P〈0. 01 ）and out of the latter two, ML approach was significantly better than RM approach（ P〈0. 01 ）. The IDS were significantly less （ better intubating conditions） with ML or LM approach than RM approach （ P〈0. 05 ） and The IDS were not significantly between ML or LM approach（ P〉0.05 ）. Conclusion The LM approach provides a significantly better laryngoscopic view and provides the same intubating conditions as the ML approach. The LM approach may prove useful to the anesthesiologist in case of difficult laryngoscopy.
出处
《四川医学》
CAS
2010年第1期37-39,共3页
Sichuan Medical Journal
关键词
左侧磨牙
右侧磨牙
正中入路
喉外按压
left molar
right molar
laryngoscopy-midline
optimal external laryngeal manipulation （ OELM ）
