Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2011
[Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal airway in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, multi-plane operation application of perioperative].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Jie, Jiang Zhenhua, Dong Chuan, Liu Qingjun, Deng Wei, Liu Guoqi, Chen Liling, Zhang Zhen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mitigation role of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal airway in obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) patients with upper airway obstruction after multiple plane operation. Observed parameters included life quality, the clinical value and reliability of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal airway.
METHOD: The nasopharyngeal airway group, 56 patients with PSG in patients diagnosed with severe OSAHS, after setting nasopharyngeal airway. Oropharyngeal airway group, 45 cases of OSAHS by PSG confirmed severe patients home after oropharyngeal airway, the same as the other treatment groups. Line postoperative ECG, oxygen saturation and hemodynamic monitoring. Two groups were compared in 24 h breathing difficulties, low oxygen saturation, hemodynamics, pharyngeal pain and discomfort of the situation.
RESULT: The multiplane after 24 h, the nasopharyngeal airway in patients hemodynamics HR (82.3 +/- 2.65) times/min, SBP(124.5 +/- 13.95) mmHg, DBP (76.2 +/- 8.1) mmHg, RPP(10282.0 +/- 1481.7), port pharyngeal airway in patients hemodynamics HR (93.4 +/- 2.89)times/min, SBP (135.1 +/- 16.5) mmHg, DBP (92.25 +/- 11.25) mmHg. There was significant difference between the two group (P < 0.05); pharyngeal pain nasopharyngeal airway group (1.71 +/- 0.45) points, oropharyngeal airway group (310) points, there was significant difference between the two (P < 0.05); nasopharyngeal airway breathing difficulties Group 0, 0 oropharyngeal airway group, no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05); the lowest oxygen saturation nasopharyngeal airway group (95.2 +/- 1.6)%, oropharyngeal airway group (95.41 +/- 1.34)%, no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05). 24 h before and after surgery between patients with the same group in the hemodynamic parameters (HR,SBP,DBP,RPP), pharyngeal pain, lowest oxygen saturation difference was statistically significant areas (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Ventilation tube in the nasopharynx and oropharynx in patients with severe OSAHS the same period of postoperative respiratory management plane could well lift the upper airway obstruction. However, nasopharyngeal ventilation tube has a better hemodynamic stability and tolerance, it can reduce patient suffering and increased health and safety from, it is a more safe, minimally invasive and effective method.
METHOD: The nasopharyngeal airway group, 56 patients with PSG in patients diagnosed with severe OSAHS, after setting nasopharyngeal airway. Oropharyngeal airway group, 45 cases of OSAHS by PSG confirmed severe patients home after oropharyngeal airway, the same as the other treatment groups. Line postoperative ECG, oxygen saturation and hemodynamic monitoring. Two groups were compared in 24 h breathing difficulties, low oxygen saturation, hemodynamics, pharyngeal pain and discomfort of the situation.
RESULT: The multiplane after 24 h, the nasopharyngeal airway in patients hemodynamics HR (82.3 +/- 2.65) times/min, SBP(124.5 +/- 13.95) mmHg, DBP (76.2 +/- 8.1) mmHg, RPP(10282.0 +/- 1481.7), port pharyngeal airway in patients hemodynamics HR (93.4 +/- 2.89)times/min, SBP (135.1 +/- 16.5) mmHg, DBP (92.25 +/- 11.25) mmHg. There was significant difference between the two group (P < 0.05); pharyngeal pain nasopharyngeal airway group (1.71 +/- 0.45) points, oropharyngeal airway group (310) points, there was significant difference between the two (P < 0.05); nasopharyngeal airway breathing difficulties Group 0, 0 oropharyngeal airway group, no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05); the lowest oxygen saturation nasopharyngeal airway group (95.2 +/- 1.6)%, oropharyngeal airway group (95.41 +/- 1.34)%, no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05). 24 h before and after surgery between patients with the same group in the hemodynamic parameters (HR,SBP,DBP,RPP), pharyngeal pain, lowest oxygen saturation difference was statistically significant areas (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Ventilation tube in the nasopharynx and oropharynx in patients with severe OSAHS the same period of postoperative respiratory management plane could well lift the upper airway obstruction. However, nasopharyngeal ventilation tube has a better hemodynamic stability and tolerance, it can reduce patient suffering and increased health and safety from, it is a more safe, minimally invasive and effective method.