Comparison of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the I-Gel™ in the different head-and-neck positions in anaesthetised paralysed children: A randomised controlled trial

Gargi Banerjee, Divya Jain, Indu Bala, Komal Gandhi, Ram Samujh, Gargi Banerjee, Divya Jain, Indu Bala, Komal Gandhi, Ram Samujh

Abstract

Background and aims: Head and neck movements alter the shape of the pharynx, resulting in changes in the oropharyngeal leaking pressures and ventilation with supragottic airway devices. We compared the effect of the different head-and-neck positions on the oropharyngeal leak pressures and ventilation with the I-Gel™ and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) in anaesthetised paralysed children.

Methods: A total of 70 children were randomly assigned to receive PLMA (n = 35) or I-Gel™ (n = 35) for airway management. Oropharyngeal leak pressure in maximum flexion, maximum extension and the neutral position was taken as the primary outcome. Peak inspiratory pressures (PIPs), expired tidal volume, ventilation score and fibreoptic grading were also assessed.

Results: No significant difference was noted in oropharyngeal leak pressures of PLMA and I-Gel™ during neutral (P = 0.34), flexion (P = 0.46) or extension (P = 0.18). PIPs mean (standard deviation [SD]) were significantly higher (17.7 [4.03] vs. 14.6 [2.4] cm H2O, P = 0.002) and expired tidal volume mean [SD] was significantly lower (5.5 [1.6] vs. 6.9 [2] ml/kg, P = 0.0017) with I-Gel™ compared to PLMA. Fibreoptic grading and ventilation score were comparable in both the groups in all the three head-and-neck positions.

Conclusion: PLMA and I-Gel™, both recorded similar oropharyngeal leaking pressures in all the three head-and-neck positions. However, higher peak pressures and lower expired tidal volume in maximum flexion of the neck while ventilating with I-Gel may warrant caution and future evaluation.

Keywords: Airway-laryngeal mask airway; anaesthesia-paediatrics; position-head-and-neck.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort flowchart
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of ventilation apertures of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (4 × 2 for size 2.5 and 3.2 × 1.5 for size 2) and I-Gel™ (1.8 × 1.5 for size 2 and 2 × 1.8 for size 2.5)

References

    1. Keller C, Brimacombe J. The influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position with the flexible and the standard laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:913–6.
    1. Buckham M, Brooker M, Brimacombe J, Keller C. A comparison of the reinforced and standard laryngeal mask airway: Ease of insertion and the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1999;27:628–31.
    1. Park SH, Han SH, Do SH, Kim JW, Kim JH. The influence of head and neck position on the oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position of three supraglottic airway devices. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:112–7.
    1. Cook T, Howes B. Supraglottic airway devices: Recent advances. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2011;11:56–61.
    1. I-gel™ User Guide. Wokingham, Berkshire: Intersurgical; 2005. Intersurgical.
    1. 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;82:286–7.
    1. Berry AM, Brimacombe JR, McManus KF, Goldblatt M. An evaluation of the factors influencing selection of the optimal size of laryngeal mask airway in normal adults. Anaesthesia. 1998;53:565–70.
    1. Nirupa R, Gombar S, Ahuja V, Sharma P. A randomised trial to compare I-gel and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway for airway management in paediatric patients. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60:726–31.
    1. Saran S, Mishra SK, Badhe AS, Vasudevan A, Elakkumanan LB, Mishra G, et al. Comparison of I-gel supraglottic airway and LMA-ProSeal™ in pediatric patients under controlled ventilation. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2014;30:195–8.
    1. Okuda K, Inagawa G, Miwa T, Hiroki K. Influence of head and neck position on cuff position and oropharyngeal sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in children. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86:122–4.
    1. Jain D, Ghai B, Bala I, Gandhi K, Banerjee G. Evaluation of I-gel™ airway in different head and neck positions in anesthetized paralyzed children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25:1248–53.
    1. Brimacombe J, Keller C. Stability of the LMA-ProSeal and standard laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions: A randomized crossover study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003;20:65–9.
    1. Sanuki T, Uda R, Sugioka S, Daigo E, Son H, Akatsuka M, et al. The influence of head and neck position on ventilation with the I-gel airway in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28:597–9.
    1. Isserles SA, Rozenberg B. LMA – reduction of gas leak. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:449.
    1. Biedler A, Wrobel M, Schneider S, Soltész S, Ziegeler S, Grundmann U, et al. Randomized evaluation of the size 2 laryngeal tube and classical laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions in children under positive pressure ventilation. J Anesth. 2013;27:657–62.
    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;12:322–6.
    1. van Zundert A, Brimacombe J, Kamphuis R, Haanschoten M. The anatomical position of three extraglottic airway devices in patients with clear airways. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:891–5.
    1. Xue FS, Mao P, Liu HP, Yang QY, Li CW, He N, et al. The effects of head flexion on airway seal, quality of ventilation and nasogastric tube placement using ProSeal ™ laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:979–85.
    1. Nandi PR, Charlesworth CH, Taylor SJ, Nunn JF, Doré CJ. Effect of general anaesthesia on the pharynx. Br J Anaesth. 1991;66:157–62.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться