A randomised trial to compare i-gel and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway for airway management in paediatric patients

R Nirupa, Satinder Gombar, Vanita Ahuja, Preeti Sharma, R Nirupa, Satinder Gombar, Vanita Ahuja, Preeti Sharma

Abstract

Background and aims: i-gel™ is a newer supraglottic airway device with a unique non-inflatable cuff. We aimed to compare i-gel™ with ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA™) in children scheduled for surgery under general anaesthesia (GA) with controlled ventilation.

Methods: This prospective, randomised controlled study was conducted in 100 surgical patients, aged 2-6 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-II scheduled under GA. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either size 2 i-gel™ or PLMA™ as an airway device. The primary aim was oropharyngeal leak pressure assessed at 5 min following correct placement of the device. Secondary outcomes measured included number of attempts, ease of insertion, time of insertion, quality of initial airway, fibre-optic grading and effects on pulmonary mechanics. Statistical analysis was done using paired t-test and Chi-square test.

Results: The demographic data were similar in both the groups. The oropharyngeal leak pressure in the i-gel™ group was 29.5 ± 2.5 cmH2 O as compared to 26.1 ± 3.8 cmH2 O in PLMA™ group (P = 0.002). The time taken for successful insertion in PLMA™ was longer as compared to i-gel (12.4 ± 2.7 vs. 10.2 ± 1.9 s, P = 0.007). The quality of initial airway was superior with i-gel™. The number of attempts, ease of insertion of supraglottic device, insertion of orogastric tube and pulmonary mechanics were similar in both the groups.

Conclusion: Size 2 i-gel™ exhibited superior oropharyngeal leak pressure and quality of airway in paediatric patients with controlled ventilation as compared to PLMA™ although the pulmonary mechanics were similar.

Keywords: Anaesthesia; i-gel; oropharyngeal leak pressure; paediatric patients.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort flow chart
Figure 2
Figure 2
Oropharyngeal leak pressure of i-gel versus ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients undergoing general anaesthesia with controlled ventilation

References

    1. 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.
    1. Jeon YS, Choi JW, Jung HS, Kim YS, Kim DW, Kim JH, et al. Effect of continuous cuff pressure regulator in general anaesthesia with laryngeal mask airway. J Int Med Res. 2011;39:1900–7.
    1. Bamgbade OA, Macnab WR, Khalaf WM. Evaluation of the i-gel airway in 300 patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25:865–6.
    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;22:355–9.
    1. Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A review of the literature. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:739–60.
    1. White MC, Cook TM, Stoddart PA. A critique of elective pediatric supraglottic airway devices. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19(Suppl 1):55–65.
    1. Beringer RM, Kelly F, Cook TM, Nolan J, Hardy R, Simpson T, et al. A cohort evaluation of the paediatric i-gel(™) airway during anaesthesia in 120 children. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:1121–6.
    1. Verghese C, Berlet J, Kapila A, Pollard R. Clinical assessment of the single use laryngeal mask airway – The LMA-unique. Br J Anaesth. 1998;80:677–9.
    1. Mitra S, Das B, Jamil SN. Comparison of Size 2.5 i-gel™ with ProSeal LMA™ in anaesthetised, paralyzed children undergoing elective surgery. N Am J Med Sci. 2012;4:453–7.
    1. Das B, Mitra S, Jamil SN, Varshney RK. Comparison of three supraglottic devices in anesthetised paralyzed children undergoing elective surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2012;6:224–8.
    1. Gasteiger L, Brimacombe J, Oswald E, Perkhofer D, Tonin A, Keller C, et al. LMA ProSeal(TM) vs. i-Gel(TM) in ventilated children: A randomised, crossover study using the size 2 mask. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56:1321–4.
    1. Saran S, Mishra SK, Badhe AS, Vasudevan A, Elakkumanan LB, Mishra G. Comparison of i-gel supraglottic airway and LMA-ProSeal™ in pediatric patients under controlled ventilation. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2014;30:195–8.
    1. Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC, Cha YJ. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel® vs. laryngeal mask airway in children. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:1258–65.
    1. Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P. Evaluation of i-gel(™) airway in children: A meta-analysis. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24:1072–9.
    1. Hughes C, Place K, Berg S, Mason D. A clinical evaluation of the I-gel™ supraglottic airway device in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22:765–71.
    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;115:102–10.
    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;53:376–9.
    1. Jindal P, Rizvi A, Sharma JP. Is I-gel a new revolution among supraglottic airway devices.- A comparative evaluation? Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2009;20:53–8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj