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
_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