Observation of ventilation effects of I-gel™, Supreme™ and Ambu AuraOnce™ with respiratory dynamics monitoring in small children

Zhiqing Gu, Quanying Jin, Junjun Liu, Lianhua Chen, Zhiqing Gu, Quanying Jin, Junjun Liu, Lianhua Chen

Abstract

The shortcomings of laryngeal mask airway (LMA™), such as upper airway obstruction and gastric distension or airway leakage, may limit its application in small children. The I-gel™ (I-gel), LMA-Supreme™ (LMA-S), and Ambu AuraOnce™ (Ambu) are three improvements upon these shortcomings. This study adopted respiratory dynamic monitoring to observe the ventilation parameters of the three laryngeal masks in small children. A total of 105 children were randomized into Ambu (n = 35), I-gel (n = 35), and LMA-S (n = 35) groups. Primary outcomes included leak pressure and respiratory dynamic data. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic data and bispectral index values after induction (T0), time after successful laryngeal mask insertion (T1) and at three recording points every 10 min after insertion (T2, T3, and T4), as well as laryngeal mask related adverse reactions. The inspiratory/expiratory tidal volume per kilogram of body weight in the Ambu group was significantly different from those in the other groups (P < 0.05), while the leak pressure in the Ambu group was significantly lower (P < 0.05). At T3 and T4, the expiratory resistance values in the Ambu group were significantly lower than those in the LMA-S group (P < 0.05). We have shown that the three laryngeal masks provided secure ventilation in children <6 years of age by using continuous respiratory dynamic monitoring. We concluded that the I-gel presented a better sealing effect and fewer adverse reactions.

Keywords: Ambu AuraOnce™; Children; I-gel™; LMA-Supreme™; Respiratory dynamic monitoring.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

    1. Wahlen BM, Heinrichs W, Latorre F. Gastric insufflation pressure, air leakage and respiratory mechanics in the use of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2004;14:313–317. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.01213.x.
    1. Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Luepold B, et al. Performance of the pediatric-sized i-gel compared with the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask in anesthetized and ventilated children. Anesthesiology. 2011;115(1):102–110. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318219d619.
    1. Trevisanuto D, Parotto M, Doglioni N, et al. The supreme laryngeal mask airway™ (LMA): a new neonatal supraglottic device: comparison with classic and ProSeal LMA in a manikin. Resuscitation. 2012;83(1):97–100. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.07.032.
    1. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, et al. A randomised comparison of the LMA Supreme and LMAProSeal in children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67(6):632–639. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07088.x.
    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(8):765–771. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03893.x.
    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. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03832.x.
    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. doi: 10.1111/pan.12078.
    1. Hosten T, Gürkan Y, Kus A, Özdamar D, Aksu C, Solak M, et al. Comparison of ProSeal LMA with Supreme LMA in paediatric patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57:996–1001. doi: 10.1111/aas.12149.
    1. I BG. Side Stream Spirome-try, Appliguide.Helsinki. Finland:Datex Division Instrumentarium Corp. 1992.
    1. De Vries JW, Haanschoten MC. Capnography does not reliably detect double-lumen endotracheal tube malplacement. J Clin Monit. 1992;8:236–237. doi: 10.1007/BF01616782.
    1. Simon BA, Hurford WE, Alfille PH, et al. An aid in the diagnosis of malpositioned double-lumen tubes. Anesthesiology. 1992;76:862–863. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199205000-00033.
    1. Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:457.
    1. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Keller C. A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001;11:319–321. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.00649.x.
    1. Weiler N, Latorre F, Eberle B, et al. Respiratory mechanics, gastric insufflation pressure, and air leakage of the laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg. 1997;84:1025–1028. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199705000-00013.
    1. Brimacomb J, Keller C, Kurian S, et al. Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88:127–129. doi: 10.1093/bja/88.1.127.
    1. Tobin M, Van D, Graaff WB. Monitoring of lung mechanincs and work of breathing. In: Tobin MJ, editor. Principles and practice of mechanical ventilation. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. pp. 259–303.
    1. Jubran A. Advances in respiratory monitoring during mechanical ventilation. Chest. 1999;116:1416–1425. doi: 10.1378/chest.116.5.1416.
    1. Appendini L, Confalonieri M, Rossi A. Clinical relevance of monitoring respiratory mechanics in the ventilator-supported patient: an update (1995–2000) Curr Opin Crit Care. 2001;7:41–48. doi: 10.1097/00075198-200102000-00007.
    1. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, et al. A randomised trial comparing the laryngeal mask airway Supreme with the laryngeal mask airway Unique in children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:139–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06960.x.
    1. Wong JG, Heaney M, Chambers NA, et al. Impact of laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures on the incidence of sore throat in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19:464–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.02968.x.
    1. William A, Chambers NA, Erb TO, et al. Incidence of sore throat in children following use of flexible laryngeal mask airways—impact of an introducer device. Paediatr Anaesth. 2010;20:839–843. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2010.03372.x.
    1. El-Boghdadly K, Bailey CR, Wiles MD. Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2016;71:706–717. doi: 10.1111/anae.13438.
    1. Van Zundert AA, Fonck K, Al-Shaikh B, et al. Comparison of cuff-pressure changes in LMA-classic and the new soft seal laryngeal masks during nitrous oxide anaesthesia in spontaneous breathing patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004;21(7):547–552. doi: 10.1097/00003643-200407000-00008.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj