Cargando…

A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children

BACKGROUND: i-gel™ is a new single-use supraglottic airway device without an inflatable cuff. This study was designed to compare the usefulness of i-gel™ versus a classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) in small children. METHODS: Sixty-three children (age range : 4-72 months) were randomly assigned to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Ju-Hyun, Cho, Hyun-Seok, Shin, Won-Jung, Yang, Hong-Seuk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2014
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24624270
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2014.66.2.127
_version_ 1782306774576005120
author Lee, Ju-Hyun
Cho, Hyun-Seok
Shin, Won-Jung
Yang, Hong-Seuk
author_facet Lee, Ju-Hyun
Cho, Hyun-Seok
Shin, Won-Jung
Yang, Hong-Seuk
author_sort Lee, Ju-Hyun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: i-gel™ is a new single-use supraglottic airway device without an inflatable cuff. This study was designed to compare the usefulness of i-gel™ versus a classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) in small children. METHODS: Sixty-three children (age range : 4-72 months) were randomly assigned to an i-gel™ or cLMA group. We evaluated hemodynamic data, airway sealing ability, the success rate of insertion, and adverse events including an inadvertent sliding out during ventilation. RESULTS: Demographic data and hemodynamic data obtained immediately after the insertion of these devices did not differ between the two groups. The success rates for insertion on the first attempt were 77 and 84% for i-gel™ and cLMA, respectively (P = 0.54), and the overall success rates were 87 and 100% respectively (P = 0.14). There were no significant differences in terms of airway leak pressure. The inserted i-gel™ inadvertently slid out in 8 of 31 patients but only one sliding out case occurred in the cLMA group (P = 0.02). There were no differences between the groups in terms of other side effects (e.g., coughing, bleeding) associated with the use of i-gel™ and cLMA (P = 0.75 and 0.49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Oropharyngeal leak pressure and insertion success rate of i-gel™ are similar to those of cLMA. However, i-gel™ is prone to inadvertent sliding out of the mouth in small children. Therefore, it is recommended that the i-gel™ should be secured more tightly to avoid displacement of the device.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3948439
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39484392014-03-12 A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children Lee, Ju-Hyun Cho, Hyun-Seok Shin, Won-Jung Yang, Hong-Seuk Korean J Anesthesiol BACKGROUND: i-gel™ is a new single-use supraglottic airway device without an inflatable cuff. This study was designed to compare the usefulness of i-gel™ versus a classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) in small children. METHODS: Sixty-three children (age range : 4-72 months) were randomly assigned to an i-gel™ or cLMA group. We evaluated hemodynamic data, airway sealing ability, the success rate of insertion, and adverse events including an inadvertent sliding out during ventilation. RESULTS: Demographic data and hemodynamic data obtained immediately after the insertion of these devices did not differ between the two groups. The success rates for insertion on the first attempt were 77 and 84% for i-gel™ and cLMA, respectively (P = 0.54), and the overall success rates were 87 and 100% respectively (P = 0.14). There were no significant differences in terms of airway leak pressure. The inserted i-gel™ inadvertently slid out in 8 of 31 patients but only one sliding out case occurred in the cLMA group (P = 0.02). There were no differences between the groups in terms of other side effects (e.g., coughing, bleeding) associated with the use of i-gel™ and cLMA (P = 0.75 and 0.49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Oropharyngeal leak pressure and insertion success rate of i-gel™ are similar to those of cLMA. However, i-gel™ is prone to inadvertent sliding out of the mouth in small children. Therefore, it is recommended that the i-gel™ should be secured more tightly to avoid displacement of the device. The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2014-02 2014-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3948439/ /pubmed/24624270 http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2014.66.2.127 Text en Copyright © the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2014 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Lee, Ju-Hyun
Cho, Hyun-Seok
Shin, Won-Jung
Yang, Hong-Seuk
A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children
title A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children
title_full A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children
title_fullStr A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children
title_short A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children
title_sort comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24624270
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2014.66.2.127
work_keys_str_mv AT leejuhyun acomparisonofsupraglotticairwayigelvsclassiclaryngealmaskairwayinsmallchildren
AT chohyunseok acomparisonofsupraglotticairwayigelvsclassiclaryngealmaskairwayinsmallchildren
AT shinwonjung acomparisonofsupraglotticairwayigelvsclassiclaryngealmaskairwayinsmallchildren
AT yanghongseuk acomparisonofsupraglotticairwayigelvsclassiclaryngealmaskairwayinsmallchildren
AT leejuhyun comparisonofsupraglotticairwayigelvsclassiclaryngealmaskairwayinsmallchildren
AT chohyunseok comparisonofsupraglotticairwayigelvsclassiclaryngealmaskairwayinsmallchildren
AT shinwonjung comparisonofsupraglotticairwayigelvsclassiclaryngealmaskairwayinsmallchildren
AT yanghongseuk comparisonofsupraglotticairwayigelvsclassiclaryngealmaskairwayinsmallchildren