Cargando…

Comparison of i–gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients

BACKGROUND: The i-gel™ is a new device introduced recently. It differs from other supraglottic airway devices. It has a non-inflatable, gel-made cuff. Previously used devices, have some disadvantages which are claimed to be absent in i-gel™. In this study we aimed to compare the performance of the l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reza Hashemian, Seyed Mohammad, Nouraei, Navid, Razavi, Seyed Sadjad, Zaker, Ebrahim, Jafari, Alireza, Eftekhari, Parivash, Radmand, Golnar, Mohajerani, Seyed Amir, Radpay, Badiozzaman
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4296330/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25625059
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2229-5151.147520
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The i-gel™ is a new device introduced recently. It differs from other supraglottic airway devices. It has a non-inflatable, gel-made cuff. Previously used devices, have some disadvantages which are claimed to be absent in i-gel™. In this study we aimed to compare the performance of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA)-Classic™ and i-gel™ during anesthesia in paralyzed patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 64 anaesthetized patients with paralysis were enrolled in a single-blind, randomized control trial to be intubated with one of the devices. We compared the device insertion parameters, some ventilatory parameters, and adverse effects after device insertion. RESULTS: Vital signs were not significantly different between groups. Regarding duration of insertion attempts, the difference between groups was significant (P < 0.05); while the number of insertion attempts was insignificant (P = 0.265). There was no significant difference between both groups regarding postoperative complications (cough, sore throat, and blood on the cuff) (P > 0.05). Airway leak was assessed in both groups and data showed no significant difference (P = 0.662). Additionally, end-tidal CO(2) change regarding the baseline value was significantly different after 10 and 15 min of anesthesia (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Successful insertion time was shorter significantly for i-gel™. As i-gel™ has easy application, it is advantageous to be used during cardiopulmonary resuscitation by non-anesthetists in which time is very important. We concluded that i-gel™ can be an alternative to LMA-Classic™ for controlled ventilation during anesthesia as it is easier to be placed.