Cargando…
Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients
CONTEXT: I-gel is a second-generation supraglottic airway device. Despite several studies on i-gel, there are very few studies on the use of i-gel in obese patients. AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical performance of i-gel between obese and nonobese patients. SETTINGS AND DESIGN:...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6180705/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30429733 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_79_18 |
_version_ | 1783362262842474496 |
---|---|
author | Prabha, Rati Raman, Rajesh Khan, Mohammad Parvez Kaushal, Dinesh Siddiqui, Ahsan Khaliq Abbas, Haider |
author_facet | Prabha, Rati Raman, Rajesh Khan, Mohammad Parvez Kaushal, Dinesh Siddiqui, Ahsan Khaliq Abbas, Haider |
author_sort | Prabha, Rati |
collection | PubMed |
description | CONTEXT: I-gel is a second-generation supraglottic airway device. Despite several studies on i-gel, there are very few studies on the use of i-gel in obese patients. AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical performance of i-gel between obese and nonobese patients. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, nonrandomized, hospital-based study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After obtaining informed consent, patients were divided into two groups of 16 patients each: group O consisted of patients with body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m(2) and Group C consisted of patients with BMI 18.5–29.9 kg/m(2). I-gel was inserted after induction of anesthesia and muscle relaxation. Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) (primary outcome variable), leak fraction, time taken to insert the device, ease of insertion, fiberoptic view of glottis through i-gel's airway tube, and adverse effects were recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Data were analyzed using SPSS 20. Continuous, ordinal, and categorical variables were analyzed using students t-test, Mann–Whitney U–test, and Fischer's exact test, respectively. RESULTS: OLP was slightly higher in Group O (25.38 ± 4.79 cm H(2)O) but was not statistically different than Group C (27.38 ± 4.38 cm H(2)O). Other parameters except weight and BMI (which were higher in Group O) were statistically similar in both groups. There was no statistical difference in side effects. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that i-gel is as effective in obese patients as in nonobese patients when used for securing the airway for surgical procedures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6180705 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61807052018-11-14 Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients Prabha, Rati Raman, Rajesh Khan, Mohammad Parvez Kaushal, Dinesh Siddiqui, Ahsan Khaliq Abbas, Haider Saudi J Anaesth Original Article CONTEXT: I-gel is a second-generation supraglottic airway device. Despite several studies on i-gel, there are very few studies on the use of i-gel in obese patients. AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical performance of i-gel between obese and nonobese patients. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, nonrandomized, hospital-based study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After obtaining informed consent, patients were divided into two groups of 16 patients each: group O consisted of patients with body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m(2) and Group C consisted of patients with BMI 18.5–29.9 kg/m(2). I-gel was inserted after induction of anesthesia and muscle relaxation. Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) (primary outcome variable), leak fraction, time taken to insert the device, ease of insertion, fiberoptic view of glottis through i-gel's airway tube, and adverse effects were recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Data were analyzed using SPSS 20. Continuous, ordinal, and categorical variables were analyzed using students t-test, Mann–Whitney U–test, and Fischer's exact test, respectively. RESULTS: OLP was slightly higher in Group O (25.38 ± 4.79 cm H(2)O) but was not statistically different than Group C (27.38 ± 4.38 cm H(2)O). Other parameters except weight and BMI (which were higher in Group O) were statistically similar in both groups. There was no statistical difference in side effects. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that i-gel is as effective in obese patients as in nonobese patients when used for securing the airway for surgical procedures. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6180705/ /pubmed/30429733 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_79_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Saudi Journal of Anesthesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Prabha, Rati Raman, Rajesh Khan, Mohammad Parvez Kaushal, Dinesh Siddiqui, Ahsan Khaliq Abbas, Haider Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients |
title | Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients |
title_full | Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients |
title_fullStr | Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients |
title_short | Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients |
title_sort | comparison of i-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6180705/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30429733 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_79_18 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT prabharati comparisonofigelforgeneralanesthesiainobeseandnonobesepatients AT ramanrajesh comparisonofigelforgeneralanesthesiainobeseandnonobesepatients AT khanmohammadparvez comparisonofigelforgeneralanesthesiainobeseandnonobesepatients AT kaushaldinesh comparisonofigelforgeneralanesthesiainobeseandnonobesepatients AT siddiquiahsankhaliq comparisonofigelforgeneralanesthesiainobeseandnonobesepatients AT abbashaider comparisonofigelforgeneralanesthesiainobeseandnonobesepatients |