Urology · 2007
Comparison of two ventilation techniques during general anesthesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: high-frequency jet ventilation versus spontaneous ventilation with a laryngeal mask airway.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Cormack John R, Hui Raymond, Olive David, Said Simone
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) with spontaneous ventilation (SV) in general anesthesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 91 consecutive patients undergoing either HFJV with a Ben Jet airway or SV with a laryngeal mask airway, comparing the total number of shocks for stone ablation and the time in the post-anesthetic care unit between groups. Stone ablation rates on postoperative x-rays were compared.
RESULTS: The HFJV group needed significantly fewer shocks for stone ablation (median, 2000 versus 3000, P = 0.0001), and there was no difference in post-anesthetic care unit time. No patient in either group had significant clinical signs of ESWL-related tissue trauma. There was no difference in stone ablation rates on follow-up x-ray (HFJV 77% versus SV 74%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of HFJV as a ventilation mode for ESWL when general anesthesia is chosen. Similar stone fragmentation rates can be achieved with fewer shocks, which may have beneficial effects, such as less pain and nausea, requiring further study.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 91 consecutive patients undergoing either HFJV with a Ben Jet airway or SV with a laryngeal mask airway, comparing the total number of shocks for stone ablation and the time in the post-anesthetic care unit between groups. Stone ablation rates on postoperative x-rays were compared.
RESULTS: The HFJV group needed significantly fewer shocks for stone ablation (median, 2000 versus 3000, P = 0.0001), and there was no difference in post-anesthetic care unit time. No patient in either group had significant clinical signs of ESWL-related tissue trauma. There was no difference in stone ablation rates on follow-up x-ray (HFJV 77% versus SV 74%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of HFJV as a ventilation mode for ESWL when general anesthesia is chosen. Similar stone fragmentation rates can be achieved with fewer shocks, which may have beneficial effects, such as less pain and nausea, requiring further study.