한국응급구조학회지 (The Korean Journal of Emergency Medical Services)

  • 제16권3호
  • /
  • Pages.19-28
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 1738-1606(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-2091(eISSN)
한국응급구조학회 (The Korea Society of Emergency Medical Services)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

초보자에서 후두튜브기도기와 후두마스크기도기의 삽관 비교 - 마네킨 연구 -

Comparison between laryngeal tube suction II and laryngeal mask airway in novice users - A manikin study -

  • Hwang, Ji-Young (Department of Emergency Medical Service, Daejeon University) ;
  • Cho, Keun-Ja (Department of Emergency Medical Service, Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2012.10.22
  • 심사 : 2012.12.10
  • 발행 : 2012.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose : The present study was designed to provide basic data for advanced pre-hospital airway management by comparing the insertion time and success rate between laryngeal tube suction II (LTS II) and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in a manikin. Methods : A total of 32 participants were novice users to both of devices among paramedic students. After taking the introductory lecture and demonstrations, the participants made an attempt to insert the LTS II and LMA to compare the insertion time and success rate. They marked the easiness of insertion of the score ranged from 1 to 10 score scale and preference of the two devices. Results : The insertion time of the LTS II was significantly shorter than that of the LMA (p =.000). There was no significant difference between LTS II and LMA in the success rate. In the easiness of insertion, the score of LTS II $(8.47{\pm}1.41score)$ was significantly higher than that of LMA $(7.19{\pm}1.98score)$(p =.001). The preference of LTS II (75%) was much higher than that of LMA (25%). Conclusion : The manikin study data showed that the LTS II may be a good alternative airway device for providing and maintaining a patent airway.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Tanaka A, Isono s, Ishikawa T, Sato J, Nishino T. Laryngeal resistance before and after minor surgery. Anesthesiology 2003; 99:252-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200308000-00005
  2. Kurola J, Harve H, Kettunen T, Laakso JP, Gorski J, Paakkonen H, et al. Airway management in cardiac arrest-comparison of the laryngeal tube, tracheal intubation and bag-valve mask ventilation in emergency medical training. Resuscitation 2004;61: 149-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.01.014
  3. Kim HS, Nam HW, Kim YH. The maximal changes of vital signs to laryngeal mask airway $ProSeal^{TM}$ insertion or tracheal intubation after anesthetic induction in hypertensive patients. Korean J Anesthesiol 2002;43:145-9. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2002.43.2.145
  4. Piper SN, Triem JG, Rohm KD, Maleck WH, Schollhorn TA, Boldt J. ProSeal-laryngeal mask versus endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopy. Anesthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2004;39:132-7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-814331
  5. Park MJ, Kim HS, Kim JT, Kim CS, Kim SD. Tearing of the lingual frenulum caused by insertion of the proSeal LMA in a child - A case report-Korean J Anesthesiol 2009: 57(5):644-6. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2009.57.5.644
  6. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fullekrug B, Agro F, Rosenblatt W, Dierdorf SF, et al. A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology 2002;96:289-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200202000-00011
  7. Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 2000;93:104-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200007000-00019
  8. Figueredo E, Martiinez M, Pintanel T. A comparison of the ProSeal laryngeal mask and the laryngeal tube in spontaneously breathing anesthetized patients. Anesth Analg 2003;96:600-5. https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-200302000-00054
  9. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fuullekrug B, Agroo F, Rosenblatt W, Dierdorf SF, et al. A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology 2002;96:289-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200202000-00011
  10. Asai T, Kawashima A, Hidaka I, Kawachi S. The laryngeal tube compared with the laryngeal mask: insertion, gas leak pressure and gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth 2002;89:729-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/89.5.729
  11. Agro F, Cataldo R, Alfano A, Galli B. A new prototype for airway management in an emergency: the laryngeal tube. Resuscitation 1999;41:284-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9572(99)00074-X
  12. Lim HK, Lee CS, Song JH, Shinn HK, Chung CK, Lee MH, et al. The comparison of laryngeal mask airway and laryngeal tube in spontaneous breathing anesthetized pediatric patients. Korean J Anesthesiol 2005;49(1):67-71. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2005.49.1.67
  13. Ocker H, Wenzel V, Schmucker P, Steinfath M, Dorges V. A comparison of the laryngeal tube with the laryngeal mask airway during routine surgical procedures. Anesth Analg 2002;95:1094-7. https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-200210000-00057
  14. Seo GJ, Shin SD, Park JS, Park GW, Son GJ, Kim YJ, et al. (National Emergency Management Agency). A study on the advancement of pre-hospital 119 emergency medical service system. 2009 Jan. Report No.: 800-20080739
  15. Cook TM, McCormick B, Asai T. Randomized comparison of laryngeal tube with classic laryngeal mask airway for anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91:373-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeg192
  16. Cook TM, McCormick B, Asai T. Use of the laryngeal tube in 100 patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2003;47:828-32. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-6576.2003.00183.x
  17. Dörges V, Ocker H, Wenzel V, Schmucker P. The laryngeal tube: A new simple airway device. Anesth Analg 2000;90(5):1220-2. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200005000-00042
  18. Huh IY, Lim YJ, Lee YK, Yang HS. Clinical effectiveness of laryngeal mask airway ProSealTM, laryngeal tube and PAXpressTM as a supraglottic airway. Korean J Anesthesiol 2005;48(3):253-58. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2005.48.3.253
  19. Wiese CH, Bahr J, Graf BM. Laryngeal tube-D(LT-D) and laryngeal mask(LMA). Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2009;134(3):69-74. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1105889
  20. Kaya G, Koyuncu O, Turan N, Turan A. Comparison of the laryngeal mask (LMA) and laryngeal tube (LT) with the perilaryngeal airway (cobraPLA) in brief paediatric surgical procedures. Anaesth Intensive Care 2008;36(3):425-30.
  21. Ahmed SM, Maroof M, Khan RM, Singhal V, Rizvi KA. A comparison of the laryngeal mask airway and PA(Xpress) for short surgical procedures. Anaesthesia 2003;58: 42-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.02867.x
  22. Thee C, Serocki G, Doerges V, Ilies C, Wallenius K, Bein B, et al. Laryngeal tube S II, laryngeal tube S disposable, Fastrach laryngeal mask and Fastrach laryngeal mask disposable during elective surgery: a randomized controlled comparison between reusable and disposable supraglottic airway devices. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010;27(5): 468-72. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283372512
  23. Dörges V, Wenzel V, Neubert E, Schmucker P. Emergency airway management by intensive care unit nurses with the intubating laryngeal mask airway and the laryngeal tube. Crit Care 2000;4(6):369-76. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc720
  24. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Chang E, Sawardekar A. A cohort evaluation of the laryngeal mask airway-supremeTM in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2012;22(8): 759-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03832.x
  25. Schalk R, Byhahn C, Fausel F, Egner A, Oberndörfer D, Walcher F, et al. Out-ofhospital airway management by paramedics and emergency physicians using laryngeal tubes. Resuscitation 2010;81(3):323-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.007
  26. Mitchell MS, Lee White M, King WD, Wang HE. Paramedic king laryngeal tube airway insertion versus endotracheal intubation in simulated pediatric respiratory arrest. Prehosp Emerg Care 2012;16(2):284-8. https://doi.org/10.3109/10903127.2011.640762