A comparison of i-gel™ and LMA Supreme™ in anesthetized and paralyzed children

Hyuk Kim, Ji Yeon Lee, Seung Yoon Lee, Sang Yoong Park, Seung Cheol Lee, Chan Jong Chung, Hyuk Kim, Ji Yeon Lee, Seung Yoon Lee, Sang Yoong Park, Seung Cheol Lee, Chan Jong Chung

Abstract

Background: Both the i-gel™ (i-gel) and LMA Supreme™ (Supreme) are new single-use second generation supraglottic airway devices available in pediatric sizes. This study was designed to investigate the i-gel in comparison with the Supreme in children undergoing general anesthesia.

Methods: One hundred children with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II undergoing general anesthesia were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or the Supreme group (50 children in each group). The device size was chosen according to weight of the children. We assessed the insertion success rate, insertion time, oropharyngeal leak pressure, grade of the fiberoptic glottic view, number of airway manipulations required, and postoperative complications.

Results: There were no differences in the demographic data between the two groups. The success rate of insertion was same in both groups. The insertion time of the i-gel was longer than that of Supreme (P = 0.004). The oropharyngeal leak pressure in the i-gel group was higher than that in the Supreme group (P = 0.013). On fiberoptic examination, the vocal cords were visible in 90% of the children in the i-gel group and in 96% of the children in the Supreme group. The number of airway manipulations required was higher in the i-gel group (14 cases) than in the Supreme group (1 case) (P < 0.001). There were no differences in complications including blood staining of the device and sore throat between both groups.

Conclusions: Both the i-gel and Supreme provided a satisfactory airway during general anesthesia in children. Compared to the Supreme, the i-gel demonstrated a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure, longer time for insertion, and a greater number of airway manipulations during anesthesia.

Keywords: Laryngeal masks; Pediatrics.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flow diagram.

References

    1. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Gordon J, Langen KE, Anderson K. A randomised comparison of the LMA Supreme™ and LMA ProSeal™ in children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:632–639.
    1. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Chang E, Langen KE, Anderson K. A randomised trial comparing the laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ with the laryngeal mask airway Unique™ in children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:139–144.
    1. Verghese C, Ramaswamy B. LMA Supreme--a new single-use LMA with gastric access: a report on its clinical efficacy. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:405–410.
    1. Hosten T, Gurkan Y, Ozdamar D, Tekin M, Toker K, Solak M. A new supraglottic airway device: LMA-supreme, comparison with LMA-Proseal. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:852–857.
    1. Tham HM, Tan SM, Woon KL, Zhao YD. A comparison of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway with the Proseal laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult patients: a randomized crossover study. Can J Anaesth. 2010;57:672–678.
    1. Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Baek SJ, Kim KH. Comparison of the Proseal LMA and intersurgical I-gel during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012;63:510–514.
    1. Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, Cros AM. The I-gel, a single-use supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:376–379.
    1. 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;115:102–110.
    1. Beringer RM, Kelly F, Cook TM, Nolan J, Hardy R, Simpson T, et al. A cohort evaluation of the paediatrici-gel™ airway during anaesthesia in 120 children. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:1121–1126.
    1. Lee JR, Kim MS, Kim JT, Byon HJ, Park YH, Kim HS, et al. A randomised trial comparing the i-gel™ with the LMA Classic™ in children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:606–611.
    1. Fukuhara A, Okutani R, Oda Y. A randomized comparison of the i-gel and the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in pediatric patients: performance and fiberoptic findings. J Anesth. 2013;27:1–6.
    1. Mizushima A, Wardall GJ, Simpson DL. The laryngeal mask airway in infants. Anaesthesia. 1992;47:849–851.
    1. Park C, Bahk JH, Ahn WS, Do SH, Lee KH. The laryngeal mask airway in infants and children. Can J Anaesth. 2001;48:413–417.
    1. Drage MP, Nunez J, Vaughan RS, Asai T. Jaw thrusting as a clinical test to assess the adequate depth of anaesthesia for insertion of the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia. 1996;51:1167–1170.
    1. Jagannathan N, Sommers K, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Shah RD, Mukherji II, et al. A randomized equivalence trial comparing the i-gel and laryngeal mask airway Supreme in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2013;23:127–133.
    1. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Chang E, Sawardekar A. A cohort evaluation of the laryngeal mask airway-Supreme™ in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22:759–764.
    1. 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;62:388–393.
    1. Keijzer C, Buitelaar DR, Efthymiou KM, Srámek M, ten Cate J, Ronday M, et al. A comparison of postoperative throat and neck complaints after the use of the i-gel and the La Premiere disposable laryngeal mask: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:1092–1095.
    1. Francksen H, Renner J, Hanss R, Scholz J, Doerges V, Bein B. A comparison of the i-gel with the LMA-Unique in non-paralysed anaesthetised adult patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:1118–1124.
    1. 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;106:1137–1139.
    1. Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Kaiser D, Urwyler N, Luyet C, Vogt A, et al. Crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask supreme and the i-gel in simulated difficult airway scenario in anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology. 2009;111:55–62.
    1. Goyal R, Shukla RN, Kumar G. Comparison of size 2 i-gel supraglottic airway with LMA-ProSeal™ and LMA-Classic™ in spontaneously breathing children undergoing elective surgery. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22:355–359.
    1. Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaya Z, Teo MM, Sia AT. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:1173–1179.
    1. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2005;15:229–234.
    1. Goudsouzian NG, Denman W, Cleveland R, Shorten G. Radiologic localization of the laryngeal mask airway in children. Anesthesiology. 1992;77:1085–1089.
    1. Inagawa G, Okuda K, Miwa T, Hiroki K. Higher airway seal does not imply adequate positioning of laryngeal mask airways in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2002;12:322–326.
    1. Weiss M, Engelhardt T. Proposal for the management of the unexpected difficult pediatric airway. Paediatr Anaesth. 2010;20:454–464.
    1. Hughes C, Place K, Berg S, Mason D. A clinical evaluation of the i-gel™supraglottic airway device in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22:765–771.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel