Comparison of the efficacies of I-gelTM and LMA-ProSealTM for airway management in pediatric patients
The present study was performed to compare the performance of I-gelTM with LMA-ProSealTM in children undergoing anesthesia. Materials and methods: A total of 185 patients who were scheduled for elective surgery in Dicle University's hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups: the I-gelTM group (Group-I, n = 95) and the p-LMATM group (Group-P, n = 90). Airway leakage pressure, insertion time, fiberoptic laryngeal image scores, ease of insertion, and possible complications were compared between these groups. Results: The airway leakage pressure of Group-I was significantly higher than that of Group-P (means ± SD: 28 ± 5 vs. 20 ± 4 cmH2O, P < 0.01). The duration of supraglottic airway device insertion was shorter in Group-I than Group-P (19 ± 4 vs. 28 ± 5 s, P < 0.01). The overall success rate was 95% for Group-I and 94% for Group-P (P = 0.10). The I-gel provided a better view of the glottis than the p-LMA (93% of cases in Group-I and 68% of cases in Group-P, P = 0.03). There were no significant differences with regard to ease of insertion (P = 0.97). Conclusion: This study suggested that I-gel is an effective and safe alternative supraglottic airway device for use in children.
Comparison of the efficacies of I-gelTM and LMA-ProSealTM for airway management in pediatric patients
The present study was performed to compare the performance of I-gelTM with LMA-ProSealTM in children undergoing anesthesia. Materials and methods: A total of 185 patients who were scheduled for elective surgery in Dicle University's hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups: the I-gelTM group (Group-I, n = 95) and the p-LMATM group (Group-P, n = 90). Airway leakage pressure, insertion time, fiberoptic laryngeal image scores, ease of insertion, and possible complications were compared between these groups. Results: The airway leakage pressure of Group-I was significantly higher than that of Group-P (means ± SD: 28 ± 5 vs. 20 ± 4 cmH2O, P < 0.01). The duration of supraglottic airway device insertion was shorter in Group-I than Group-P (19 ± 4 vs. 28 ± 5 s, P < 0.01). The overall success rate was 95% for Group-I and 94% for Group-P (P = 0.10). The I-gel provided a better view of the glottis than the p-LMA (93% of cases in Group-I and 68% of cases in Group-P, P = 0.03). There were no significant differences with regard to ease of insertion (P = 0.97). Conclusion: This study suggested that I-gel is an effective and safe alternative supraglottic airway device for use in children.
___
- Nolan JP, Deakin CD, Soar J, Bottiger BW, Smith G, European Resuscitation Council. European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2005. Section 4. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation 2005; 67: S39–86.
- Katz SH, Falk JL. Misplaced endotracheal tubes by paramedics in an urban emergency medical services system. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37: 32–7.
- Holm-Knudsen RJ, Rasmussen LS. Paediatric airway management: basic aspects. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53: 1–
- Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, Cros AM. The I-gel, a singleuse supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53: 376–9.
- Brimacombe J. Analysis of 1500 laryngeal mask uses by one anaesthetist in adults undergoing routine anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 76–80.
- Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Alvarez M. Safety and efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway. A prospective survey of 1400 children. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 969–72.
- Sahin A, Tufek A, Cingu AK, Caca I, Tokgoz O, Balsak S. The effect of I-gel airway on intraocular pressure in pediatric patients who received sevoflurane or desflurane during strabismus surgery. Paediatr Anaesth 2012; 22: 772–5.
- Karabıyık L, Öncül S, Emmez G. The effects of the Cobra perilaryngeal airway on intraocular pressure. Turk J Med Sci 2012; 42: 667–73.
- Barker P, Langton JA, Murphy PJ, Rowbotham DJ. Regurgitation of gastric contents during general anaesthesia using the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth 1992; 69: 314–5.
- Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T, Bogusch G, Mager G, Kerner T. Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device I-Gel in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways Classic and ProSeal using a cadaver model. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102: 135–9.
- Endo K, Okabe Y, Maruyama Y, Tsukatani T, Furukawa M. Bilateral vocal cord paralysis caused by laryngeal mask airway. Am J Otolaryngol 2007; 28: 126–9.
- Wong JG, Heaney M, Chambers NA, Erb TO, von UngernSternberg BS. Impact of laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures on the incidence of sore throat in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2009; 19: 464–9.
- Brimacombe J, Holyoake L, Keller C, Brimacombe N, Scully M, Barry J et al. Pharyngolaryngeal, neck, and jaw discomfort after anesthesia with the face mask and laryngeal mask airway at high and low cuff volumes in males and females. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 26–31.
- Levitan RM, Kinkle WC. Initial anatomic investigations of the I-gel airway: a novel supraglottic airway without inflatable cuff. Anaesthesia 2005; 60: 1022–6.
- Francksen H, Renner J, Hanss R, Scholz J, Doerges V, Bein B. A comparison of the i-gel with the LMA-Unique in nonparalysed anaesthetised adult patients. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 1118–24.
- Shin WJ, Cheong YS, Yang HS, Nishiyama T. The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol; 27: 598–601. Janakiraman C, Chethan DB, Wilkes AR, Stacey MR, Goodwin N. A randomised crossover trial comparing the i-gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 674–8.
- Lee JR, Kim MS, Kim JT, Byon HJ, Park YH, Kim HS et al. A randomised trial comparing the i-gel (TM) with the LMA Classic (TM) in children. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 606–11.
- Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Luepold B, Stucki F, Seiler S, Urwyler N et al. Performance of the pediatric-sized i-gel compared with the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask in anesthetized and ventilated children. Anesthesiology 2011; 115: 102–10.
- Park C, Bahk JH, Ahn WS, Do SH, Lee KH. The laryngeal mask airway in infants and children. Can J Anaesth 2001; 48: 413–7.
- Beringer RM, Kelly F, Cook TM, Nolan J, Hardy R, Simpson T et al. A cohort evaluation of the paediatric i-gel( TM ) airway during anaesthesia in 120 children. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 1121–6.
- Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82: 286–
- Keller C, Brimacombe J, Puhringer F. A fibreoptic scoring system to assess the position of laryngeal mask airway devices. Interobserver variability and a comparison between the standard, flexible and intubating laryngeal mask airways. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2000; 35: 692–
- Goldmann K, Jakob C. Size 2 ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover investigation with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94: 385–9.
- Goldmann K, Jakob C. A randomized crossover comparison of the size 2 1/2 laryngeal mask airway ProSeal versus laryngeal mask airway-Classic in pediatric patients. Anesth Analg 2005; 100: 1605–10.
- Goldmann K, Roettger C, Wulf H. The size 1(1/2) ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in infants: a randomized, crossover investigation with the Classic laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 2006; 102: 405–10.
- Jackson KM, Cook TM. Evaluation of four airway training manikins as patient simulators for the insertion of eight types of supraglottic airway devices. Anaesthesia 2007; 62: 388–93.
- Goyal R, Henderson DA, Chu N, Longo LD. Ovine middle cerebral artery characterization and quantification of ultrastructure and other features: changes with development. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2012; 302: R433–45.
- Shimbori H, Ono K, Miwa T, Morimura N, Noguchi M, Hiroki K. Comparison of the LMA-ProSeal and LMA-Classic in children. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93: 528–31.
- Richez B, Saltel L, Banchereau F, Torrielli R, Cros AM. A new single use supraglottic airway device with a noninflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study of the i-gel. Anesth Analg 2008; 106: 1137–9, table of contents.
- Gibbison B, Cook TM, Seller C. Case series: Protection from aspiration and failure of protection from aspiration with the i-gel airway. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100: 415–7.
- Keller C, Brimacombe J, Kleinsasser A, Loeckinger A. Does the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway prevent aspiration of regurgitated fluid? Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 1017–20.
- Brimacombe JR, Berry A. The incidence of aspiration associated with the laryngeal mask airway: a meta-analysis of published literature. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 297–305.
- Abukawa Y, Hiroki K, Ozaki M. Initial experience of the i-gel supraglottic airway by the residents in pediatric patients. J Anesth 2012; 26: 357-61.
- Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 457.