A randomised trial comparing the i-gel (TM) with the LMA Classic (TM) in children
J-R Lee, M-S Kim, J-T Kim, H-J Byon, Y-H Park, H-S Kim, C-S Kim, J-R Lee, M-S Kim, J-T Kim, H-J Byon, Y-H Park, H-S Kim, C-S Kim
Abstract
We performed a prospective, randomised trial comparing the i-gel(TM) with the LMA Classic(TM) in children undergoing general anaesthesia. Ninety-nine healthy patients were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or the LMA Classic. The outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease of insertion, time taken for insertion, fibreoptic examination and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was shorter with the i-gel (17.0 (13.8-20.0 [10.0-20.0]) s) compared with the LMA Classic (21.0 (17.5-25.0 [15.0-70.0]) s, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in oropharyngeal leak pressure between the two devices. A good fibreoptic view of the glottis was obtained in 74% of the i-gel group and in 43% of the LMA Classic group (p < 0.001). There were no significant complications. In conclusion, the i-gel provided a similar leak pressure, but a shorter insertion time and improved glottic view compared with the LMA Classic in children.
Anaesthesia © 2012 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.
Source: PubMed