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
References
- 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.
- 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.
- Bamgbade OA, Macnab WR, Khalaf WM. Evaluation of the i-gel airway in 300 patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25:865–6.
- 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.
- Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A review of the literature. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:739–60.
- White MC, Cook TM, Stoddart PA. A critique of elective pediatric supraglottic airway devices. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19(Suppl 1):55–65.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P. Evaluation of i-gel(™) airway in children: A meta-analysis. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24:1072–9.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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