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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1782352957900062720 |
---|---|
author | Reza Hashemian, Seyed Mohammad Nouraei, Navid Razavi, Seyed Sadjad Zaker, Ebrahim Jafari, Alireza Eftekhari, Parivash Radmand, Golnar Mohajerani, Seyed Amir Radpay, Badiozzaman |
author_facet | Reza Hashemian, Seyed Mohammad Nouraei, Navid Razavi, Seyed Sadjad Zaker, Ebrahim Jafari, Alireza Eftekhari, Parivash Radmand, Golnar Mohajerani, Seyed Amir Radpay, Badiozzaman |
author_sort | Reza Hashemian, Seyed Mohammad |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4296330 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42963302015-01-26 Comparison of i–gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients Reza Hashemian, Seyed Mohammad Nouraei, Navid Razavi, Seyed Sadjad Zaker, Ebrahim Jafari, Alireza Eftekhari, Parivash Radmand, Golnar Mohajerani, Seyed Amir Radpay, Badiozzaman Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci Original Article 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. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4296330/ /pubmed/25625059 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2229-5151.147520 Text en Copyright: © International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Reza Hashemian, Seyed Mohammad Nouraei, Navid Razavi, Seyed Sadjad Zaker, Ebrahim Jafari, Alireza Eftekhari, Parivash Radmand, Golnar Mohajerani, Seyed Amir Radpay, Badiozzaman Comparison of i–gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients |
title | Comparison of i–gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients |
title_full | Comparison of i–gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients |
title_fullStr | Comparison of i–gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of i–gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients |
title_short | Comparison of i–gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients |
title_sort | comparison of i–gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients |
topic | Original Article |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rezahashemianseyedmohammad comparisonofigelandlaryngealmaskairwayinanesthetizedparalyzedpatients AT nouraeinavid comparisonofigelandlaryngealmaskairwayinanesthetizedparalyzedpatients AT razaviseyedsadjad comparisonofigelandlaryngealmaskairwayinanesthetizedparalyzedpatients AT zakerebrahim comparisonofigelandlaryngealmaskairwayinanesthetizedparalyzedpatients AT jafarialireza comparisonofigelandlaryngealmaskairwayinanesthetizedparalyzedpatients AT eftekhariparivash comparisonofigelandlaryngealmaskairwayinanesthetizedparalyzedpatients AT radmandgolnar comparisonofigelandlaryngealmaskairwayinanesthetizedparalyzedpatients AT mohajeraniseyedamir comparisonofigelandlaryngealmaskairwayinanesthetizedparalyzedpatients AT radpaybadiozzaman comparisonofigelandlaryngealmaskairwayinanesthetizedparalyzedpatients |