Comparison of i-gel supraglottic airway and LMA-ProSeal™ in pediatric patients under controlled ventilation

Supraglottic airway devices: a powerful strategy in airway management

The escalating airway management demands of cancer patients have prompted us to continually curate airway devices, with supraglottic airway devices (SADs) playing a significant role in this regard. SADs serve as instrumental tools for maintaining an open upper airway. Since the inception of the earliest SADs in the early 1980s, an array of advanced and enhanced second-generation devices have been employed in clinical settings. These upgraded SADs integrate specific features designed to enhance positive-pressure ventilation and mitigate the risk of aspiration. Nowadays, they are extensively used in general anesthesia procedures and play a critical role in difficult airway management, pre-hospital care, and emergency medicine. In certain situations, SADs may be deemed a superior alternative to endotracheal tube (ETT) and can be employed in a broader spectrum of surgical and non-surgical cases. This review provides an overview of the current evidence, a summary of classifications, relevant application scenarios, and areas for improvement in the development or clinical application of future SADs.

Comparison of insertion characteristics of LMA ProSeal from the front and head-end of the patient: A randomized pilot study

Background and Aims

LMA ProSeal (PLMA) is a commonly used airway maintenance device in elective procedures and is routinely inserted from the head-end of the patient. It is also used in pre-hospital emergencies where it may not always be possible to access the head-end. This study aims to compare the insertion characteristics of PLMA when inserted while standing, either at the head-end or from the front.

Material and Methods

After institutional ethics committee approval, 60 consenting patients of either sex, between 18 and 60 years, ASA class I/II, and scheduled to undergo elective surgeries were randomly allocated to either group H (head-end insertion) or group F (front-end insertion). Patients with anticipated difficult airway, chronic respiratory disease, obesity, and who were pregnant were excluded. Insertion time, ease of insertion, fiber optic view, ease of drain tube insertion, number of attempts and success rate were noted. Normally distributed quantitative variables were compared using t-test, and qualitative variables were compared using Chi-squared test. A P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Insertion time in group H (23.76 ± 4.48 s) was lesser than in group F (30.53 ± 6.23s) (P = 0.027). Ease of insertion (P = 0.052), fiber optic view, ease of drain tube placement (P = 1.000), and number of attempts (P = 1.000) were comparable among the groups.

Conclusion

Although the insertion time from the front is longer than from the head-end, the other insertion characteristics of PLMA including ease of its insertion, placement and success rate of placement are similar when it is inserted from the front or from the head-end. It is an appropriate airway device for securing the airway when the head-end is inaccessible.

Comparison between LMA ProSeal and I-gel airway in anesthetized patients on spontaneous ventilation during daycare procedures: A prospective randomized study

Background

General anesthesia remains the most popular technique for ambulatory surgeries with patients, surgeons, and anesthesia providers. The supraglottic airway (SGA) devices result in fewer incidences of sore throat, laryngospasm, coughing, and hoarseness as compared to inserting a tracheal tube. This study was conducted to compare two second-generation SGA devices, LMA ProSeal and I-gel airway, in anesthetized patients on spontaneous ventilation during daycare procedures to establish the superior SGA device.

Methodology

This prospective randomized study was done on 90 patients of either sex aged 15-60 years, ASA grade I-II, Mallampatti grade I and II, and BMI between 20 and 30 kg/m2 scheduled for elective surgeries of duration less than 90 min. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups-group A (I-gel) and group B (LMA ProSeal). Insertion parameters, hemodynamic responses, oxygenation, ventilation, peak airway pressure (PAP), and postoperative complications were recorded. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 21.0 statistical analysis software.

Results

Mean insertion time of LMA ProSeal was found to be significantly higher as compared to I-gel (33.27 ± 3.88 vs 18.49 ± 3.18 s; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the groups in the number of attempts and of operators attempted for insertion, as well as in hemodynamic response, oxygenation, and ventilation. Postoperative complications were lesser in group A.

Conclusion

I-gel is an easy-to-insert cuffless SGA device requiring lesser time for insertion, provides adequate ventilation with lesser postoperative complications and thus appears to be better than LMA ProSeal.

Contrast of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of I-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ in patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conflicting outcomes have been reported for the i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ProSeal™ in children and adults during general anesthesia. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that yielded wide contrast outcomes between i-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ were included in this meta-analysis.

METHODS

Two authors independently identified RCTs that compared i-gel™ with LMA ProSeal™ among patients receiving general anesthesia by performing searches in EMBASE, Cochrane, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. Discussion was adopted to resolve disagreements. Data were counted with Review Manger 5.3 and pooled by applying weighted mean difference (MD) and rlsk ratio (RR), and related 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 33 RCTs with 2605 patients were included in the meta-analysis. I-gel™ provided a considerably lower oropharyngeal leak pressure [weighted average diversity (MD) = -1.53 (-2.89, -0.17), P = 0.03], incidence of blood staining on the supraglottic airway devices [RR = 0.44, (0.28, 0.69), P = 0.0003], sore throat [RR = 0.31 (0.18, 0.52), P<0.0001], and a short insertion time [MD = -5.61 (-7.71, -3.51), P<0.00001] than LMA ProSeal™. Compared with LMA ProSeal™, i-gel™ offered a significantly higher first-insertion success rate [RR = 1.03 (1.00, 1.06), P = 0.03] and ease of insertion [RR = 1.06 (1.01, 1.11), P = 0.03]. The gastric-tube-placement first insertion rate [RR = 1.04 (0.99, 1.10), P = 0.11], laryngospasm [RR = 0.76 (0.17, 3.31), P = 0.72], and cough [RR = 1.30 (0.49, 3.44), P = 0.60] between the two devices were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Both devices could achieve a good seal to provide adequate ventilation. Compared with the used LMA ProSeal™, the i-gel™ was found to have fewer complications (blood stainning, sore throat) and offers certain advantages (short insertion time, higher first-insertion success rate and ease of insertion) in patients under general anesthesia.

Comparison of Proseal LMA with i-Gel in children under controlled ventilation: a prospective randomised clinical study

Background

Supraglottic airway device is presently the most common modality of airway management in children for short surgical procedures. The i-gel is one such novel supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of i-gel compared to LMA Proseal regarding oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion time, ease of insertion, and fibreoptic view of larynx.

Methods

After obtaining ethical clearance and parental consent, 70 children aged 2–10 years, weighing 10–30 kg were randomised to receive LMA Proseal or i-gel for airway management. Data with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion time, ease of insertion, number of attempts, and fibreoptic score were collected. The primary outcome was the oropharyngeal leak pressure with the two supraglottic airway devices measured by manometric stability.

Results

Demographic data were comparable between the two groups. The oropharyngeal leak pressure (LMA Proseal vs. i-gel, 20.51 ± 4.71 cmH₂O vs. 19.57 ± 5.71 cmH₂O), ease of insertion, number of attempts, and fibreoptic view score was similar between the two groups. The insertion time was faster with i-gel (22.63 ± 5.79 s) compared to LMA Proseal (43.26 ± 7.85 s).

Conclusion

I-gel was similar to LMA Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure in children under controlled ventilation.

A study of effect of lateral position on oropharyngeal seal pressure of i-gel® and ProSeal™ LMA in children

Background and Aims

Supraglottic airways (SGAs) should have good oropharyngeal seal pressures (OSP) for adequate ventilation and prevention of aspiration. Our aim was to study the effect of lateral position on OSP and thereby on ventilatory parameters for i-gel^® and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) in children.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, 86 children of ASA I-II, aged 1 month to 12 years, scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia using i-gel^® or PLMA and requiring lateral position either for surgery or regional blocks were included. In both supine and lateral position OSP (constant flow method), expired tidal volume, fractional volume loss (%), and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂) were noted. Intragroup and intergroup difference in OSP from supine to lateral position was analyzed using paired and unpaired t-test respectively.

Results

In lateral position, there was a significant decrease in the OSP (cm H₂O) in both i-gel^® (supine: 21.94 ± 5.82, lateral: 15.54 ± 5.37) and PLMA (supine: 17.53 ± 5.05, lateral: 12.76 ± 3.37) groups (P = 0.000). Percentage reduction in OSP from supine to lateral with i-gel^® (28.14 ± 18.86) and PLMA (24.06 ± 19.75) were comparable (P = 0.339). With both i-gel^® and PLMA significant increase in fractional volume loss and ETCO₂ were noted in lateral position. I-gel^® group had higher OSP compared to PLMA in supine (P = 0.001) and lateral position (P = 0.009).

Conclusion

In lateral position there was significant reduction in OSP compared to supine position with both i-gel^® and PLMA.

Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA® ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The LMA ProSeal® is considered a prototype among the second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SAD). The Ambu AuraGain™ is a relatively new, single use, second-generation SAD with a preformed shape. We conducted this study with the aim of comparing the difference in clinical performance between Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA ProSeal® in children receiving controlled ventilation.

METHODS

Ninety-four children, aged between 6 months to 12 years, weighing 5 to 30 kg, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I and II, undergoing elective surgical procedures, were randomized into two groups. The primary end-point was oropharyngeal seal pressure, and the secondary parameters were the number of attempts, time of insertion, ease of placement of the device and gastric tube, and fiberoptic visualization of the laryngeal aperture.

RESULTS

The mean oropharyngeal seal pressure with Ambu AuraGain™ was significantly higher than LMA ProSeal® (23.3 ± 4.6 cmH2O vs 20.6 ± 4.8 cmH2O, P = 0.007, respectively). The ease and success rate for device placement, fiberoptic visualization of the larynx, and complications were comparable. However, the time for insertion in Ambu AuraGain™ group was shorter when compared to LMA ProSeal® group, median (IQR [range]); 12 (10-15) s vs 20 (18-23) s (P < 0.001), respectively. The gastric drain was significantly easier to insert in Ambu AuraGain™ compared to LMA® ProSeal (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that Ambu AuraGain™ could be a useful disposable alternative to LMA ProSeal® for securing airway in children.

Performance and skill retention of five supraglottic airway devices for the pediatric difficult airway in a manikin

Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) have been introduced to assist medical professionals in emergency situations with limited experience in securing airways via conventional endotracheal intubation (ETI). Literature on the use of SADs for securing an airway during pediatric critical settings is scarce, and there is a lack of studies comparing different SADs to each other and to conventional ETI. We conducted a study comparing five different SADs to ETI with regard to success rate, time to first ventilation, and personal rating in a pediatric manikin under simulated physiologic and pathologic airway conditions in 41 pediatricians of varying clinical experience and training. Only the AirQ, AuraG, and laryngeal tube (LT) were inserted within 30 s correctly by all participants under physiologic conditions. In tongue edema (TE), AirQ and LT had the highest success rate. In limited mobility of the cervical spine (CS), AirQ, AuraG, and LT again all were inserted within 30 s. In a multivariate analysis, factors influencing the success were experience with the respective device and level of medical education. Under TE conditions, there were significantly longer insertion times for the ETI, laryngeal mask airway (LMA), and EzT. Under CS conditions, there were significantly longer insertion times for the ETI, LMA, LT, and EzT. A multivariate analysis showed experience with the respective device to be the only factor of influence on time to first ventilation.

CONCLUSION

LT, AuraG, and AirQ were superior in providing fast and effective ventilation during simulated difficult airway situations in pediatricians. What is Known: • Supraglottic airway devices have been introduced for medical professionals who lack experience for managing difficult airway situations. • A variety of these devices have been developed so far, but not compared to each other yet. What is New: • We compared five different supraglottic airway devices with regard to success rate, time to first ventilation, and personal rating in a pediatric manikin under simulated physiologic and pathologic airway conditions. • Laryngeal tube, AuraG, and AirQ were superior in providing fast and effective ventilation during simulated difficult airway situations in pediatricians with varying clinical experience.

Comparison of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the I-Gel™ in the different head-and-neck positions in anaesthetised paralysed children: A randomised controlled trial

Background and Aims:

Head and neck movements alter the shape of the pharynx, resulting in changes in the oropharyngeal leaking pressures and ventilation with supragottic airway devices. We compared the effect of the different head-and-neck positions on the oropharyngeal leak pressures and ventilation with the I-Gel™ and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) in anaesthetised paralysed children.

Methods:

A total of 70 children were randomly assigned to receive PLMA (n = 35) or I-Gel™ (n = 35) for airway management. Oropharyngeal leak pressure in maximum flexion, maximum extension and the neutral position was taken as the primary outcome. Peak inspiratory pressures (PIPs), expired tidal volume, ventilation score and fibreoptic grading were also assessed.

Results:

No significant difference was noted in oropharyngeal leak pressures of PLMA and I-Gel™ during neutral (P = 0.34), flexion (P = 0.46) or extension (P = 0.18). PIPs mean (standard deviation [SD]) were significantly higher (17.7 [4.03] vs. 14.6 [2.4] cm H₂O, P = 0.002) and expired tidal volume mean [SD] was significantly lower (5.5 [1.6] vs. 6.9 [2] ml/kg, P = 0.0017) with I-Gel™ compared to PLMA. Fibreoptic grading and ventilation score were comparable in both the groups in all the three head-and-neck positions.

Conclusion:

PLMA and I-Gel™, both recorded similar oropharyngeal leaking pressures in all the three head-and-neck positions. However, higher peak pressures and lower expired tidal volume in maximum flexion of the neck while ventilating with I-Gel may warrant caution and future evaluation.

Comparison of the Laryngeal Mask Airways: Laryngeal Mask Airway-classic and Laryngeal Mask Airway-proseal in Children

Introduction:

In the past 25 years with the development of various supraglottic airway devices, the armamentarium for airway management has increased. In our study, the laryngeal mask airway (LMA)-ProSeal is compared with the LMA-Classic with respect to as follows: (a) Ease of insertion and number of insertion attempts, (b) Device positional stability and possible oropharyngeal leak, (c) Airway trauma, and (d) Hemodynamic changes; in children aged 3–15 years undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia, hypothesizing that these would be different.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty consecutive American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classes I and II children aged 3–15 years and weighing 5–45 kg undergoing elective surgery in the supine position were randomized for airway management with the LMA-Classic or LMA-ProSeal.

Results:

Size of the LMA used in both LMA-Classic and LMA-ProSeal was 1.5, 2, and 2.5 and was statistically nonsignificant. There was no difference between LMA-Classic and LMA-ProSeal with regard to ease of insertion, number of attempts for insertion, device positional stability, airway trauma and hemodynamic changes.

Conclusions:

The complications of usage of the LMA are minimal and similar in both the devices. The LMA-ProSeal has advantages over LMA-classic such as the placement of gastric tube, adequate ventilation, and oxygenation without any gastric distension.

A network meta-analysis of the clinical properties of various types of supraglottic airway device in children

We conducted both conventional pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses to compare the clinical properties of supraglottic airway devices in children. We searched six databases for randomised clinical trials. Our primary end-points were oropharyngeal leak pressure, risk of insertion failure at first attempt, and blood staining risk. The risk of device failure, defined as the abandonment of the supraglottic airway device and replacement with a tracheal tube or another device, was also analysed. Sixty-five randomised clinical trials with 5823 participants were identified, involving 16 types of supraglottic airway device. Network meta-analysis showed that the i-gel™, Cobra perilaryngeal airway™ and Proseal laryngeal mask airway (LMA^® -Proseal) showed statistically significant differences in oropharyngeal leak pressure compared with the LMA^® -Classic, with mean differences (95% credible interval, CrI) of 3.6 (1.9-5.8), 4.6 (1.7-7.6) and 3.4 (2.0-4.8) cmH₂ O, respectively. The i-gel was the only device that significantly reduced the risk of blood staining of the device compared with the LMA-Classic, with an odds ratio (95%CrI) of 0.46 (0.22-0.90). The risk (95%CI) of device failure with the LMA-Classic, LMA^® -Unique and LMA-Proseal was 0.36% (0.14-0.92%), 0.49% (0.13-1.8%) and 0.50% (0.23-1.1%), respectively, whereas the risk (95%CI) of the i-gel and PRO-Breathe was higher, at 3.4% (2.5-4.7%) and 6.0% (2.8-12.5%), respectively. The risk, expressed as odds ratio (95%CrI), of insertion failure at first attempt, was higher in patients weighing < 10 kg at 5.1 (1.6-20.1). We conclude that the LMA-Proseal may be the best supraglottic airway device for children as it has a high oropharyngeal leak pressure and a low risk of insertion. Although the i-gel has a high oropharyngeal leak pressure and low risk of blood staining of the device, the risk of device failure should be evaluated before its routine use can be recommended.

Effect of anesthesia on intraocular pressure measurement in children

Measurement of the intraocular pressure (IOP) is central to the diagnosis and management of pediatric glaucoma. An examination under anesthesia is often necessary in pediatric patients. Different agents used for sedation or general anesthesia have varied effects on IOP. Hemodynamic factors, methods of airway management, tonometry technique, and body positioning can all affect IOP measurements. The most accurate technique is one that reflects the awake IOP. We review factors affecting IOP measurements in the pediatric population and provide recommendations on the most accurate means to measure IOP under anesthesia based on the present literature.

A comparison of 3 ventilation strategies in children younger than 1 year using a Proseal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine quantitative differences in several routinely measured ventilation parameters using a standardized anesthetic technique and 3 different ventilation modalities in patients younger than 1 year with a ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA).

DESIGN

Randomized prospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary care pediatric hospital.

PATIENTS

Thirty-nine American Society Anesthesiologists classifications 1 to 2, pediatric patients younger than 1 year.

INTERVENTIONS

Three different ventilation strategies (spontaneous ventilation [SV], pressure support ventilation [PSV], and pressure-controlled ventilation [PCV]) were randomly applied to patients who underwent a standardized mask induction with sevoflurane/oxygen and propofol 2 mg/kg and fentanyl 2 μg/kg administered intravenously followed by PLMA insertion. Patients were maintained on sevoflurane and N₂O.

MEASUREMENTS

We measured the differences in end-tidal CO₂ (etco₂), tidal volume (TV), and respiratory rate (RR) over time between SV, PSV, and PCV. These data were recorded at 5-minute intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

etco₂ (mm Hg) was not significantly higher in the SV vs PSV (P=2.11) and SV vs PCV (P=.24). TV (mL/kg) was significantly lower in SV vs PSV (P<.005) and SV vs PCV (P<.005). RR was not significantly higher in SV vs PSV (P=.43), but was significantly higher in SV vs PCV (P<.005). Three patients in the SV group and 1 patient in the PSV group failed to initiate SV and required PCV and were thus excluded from analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

All 3 modes of ventilation using a PLMA were safe in children younger than 1 year. Although we did not observe a statistically significant increase in etco₂, differences in TV and RR, and the small but significant incidence of apnea may make PSV or PCV more optimal ventilation strategies in children younger than 1 year when using a PLMA.

Comparison of I-gel with Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway Regarding the Ease of Use and Clinical Performance

OBJECTIVE

I-gel is a new supraglottic airway device without an inflatable cuff. We aimed to compare I-gel and the classic laryngeal mask airway (LMA) regarding the ease of use and clinical performance in Turkish population.

METHODS

Fifty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients were randomly allocated into two groups: Group I-gel and Group LMA. Insertion time and success in first attempt were recorded. Peak, plato and mean airway pressures, EtCO2, airway compliance and leak volume were periodically recorded during the operation. The presence of blood on device removal and postoperative sore throat were also assessed.

RESULTS

The device insertion time in Group I-gel was shorter than that in Group LMA (21.00±4.15 vs. 30.40±12.17 s, p=0.001). The success rate in first attempt, peak, plato and mean airway pressures, EtCO2 and airway compliance did not differ between the groups. The leak volume was lower in Group I-gel 5 and 45 min after insertion (p=0.041 and p=0.027). The presence of blood on device removal and postoperative sore throat were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

I-gel may be a more advantageous supraglottic airway device compared with LMA.

Assessment of suitability of i-gel and laryngeal mask airway-supreme for controlled ventilation in anesthetized paralyzed patients: A prospective randomized trial

CONTEXT

Laryngeal mask airway supreme (LMA-S) has an inflatable cuff while i-gel has a noninflatable cuff made of thermoplastic elastomer.

AIMS

To study the efficacy of ventilation and the laryngeal seal pressures (LSPs) with either device. Our secondary objectives were to compare the ease of insertion, adequacy of positioning the device, hemodynamic response to device insertion, and any postoperative oropharyngeal morbidity.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study at Teaching Medical School in South India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-two patients posted for surgery under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups - LMA-S and i-gel. After a standardized premedication and anesthesia induction sequence, the supra-glottic devices were introduced. Ease of insertion was assessed from the number of attempts taken to insert, insertion time, and any maneuvers required to insert the device. Position of the device was assessed by the ease of gastric catheter placement and the fibreoptic grading of laryngeal visualization. Efficacy of ventilation was determined from the LSP, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2)values. Any postoperative oropharyngeal morbidity was also recorded.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis was reported as a mean and standard deviation, median, and range of continuous variables. Demographics were analyzed using a unpaired t-test for parametric data and Chi-square test for nonparametric data. Respiratory and hemodynamic data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA to find statistical difference within and between the two groups.

RESULTS

LMA-S was successfully inserted in 95% of patients and i-gel in 85.5% of patients. There was a significant difference (P = 0.021) in the LSPs between the two groups (18.15 cmH2O in LMA-S and 21.28 cmH2O in the i-gel group). There was no significant difference in the PIPs, leak fraction, and the EtCO2values.

CONCLUSION

Both devices are suitable for positive pressure ventilation (PPV) in anesthetized paralyzed patients. However, i-gel gives a better laryngeal seal when compared to LMA-S and may be chosen preferentially for PPV.

Comparison of i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway Classic™ in terms of ease of insertion and hemodynamic response: A randomized observational study

Context:

Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Classic™ has an inflatable cuff while i-gel™ has a noninflatable cuff made of thermoplastic elastomer.

Aims:

To compare ease of insertion, number, and duration of insertion attempts among the two device. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the hemodynamic response and SpO₂ during device insertion and during maintenance of general anesthesia.

Settings and Design:

This study was conducted as randomized observational study in a teaching hospital.

Subjects and Methods:

One hundred American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II, patients posted for surgery under general anesthesia were divided in two groups of fifty each. LMA Classic™ and i-gel™. Ease of insertion, duration of insertion, hemodynamic data, and episodes of hypoxia during insertion, 1, 3 and 5 min for 30 min, during removal and 1 min after removal.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Descriptive analyses were expressed as a mean ± standard deviation. Independent t-test used for parametric data, Chi-square test for nonparametric data and hemodynamic data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA to find statistical difference within the groups.

Results:

Devices were easy to insert, the mean duration of insertion attempts was 15.92 ± 1.62 s in the i-gel™ group, while it was 26.06 ± 5.12 s in the LMA Classic™ group, was statistically significant (P = 0.0001).

Conclusions:

Successful and shorter duration of insertion, with less hemodynamic response makes i-gel™ a suitable alternative to LMA Classic™ during general anesthesia.

A randomised trial to compare i-gel and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway for airway management in paediatric patients

Background and Aims:

i-gel™ is a newer supraglottic airway device with a unique non-inflatable cuff. We aimed to compare i-gel™ with ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA™) in children scheduled for surgery under general anaesthesia (GA) with controlled ventilation.

Methods:

This prospective, randomised controlled study was conducted in 100 surgical patients, aged 2–6 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I–II scheduled under GA. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either size 2 i-gel™ or PLMA™ as an airway device. The primary aim was oropharyngeal leak pressure assessed at 5 min following correct placement of the device. Secondary outcomes measured included number of attempts, ease of insertion, time of insertion, quality of initial airway, fibre-optic grading and effects on pulmonary mechanics. Statistical analysis was done using paired t-test and Chi-square test.

Results:

The demographic data were similar in both the groups. The oropharyngeal leak pressure in the i-gel™ group was 29.5 ± 2.5 cmH₂ O as compared to 26.1 ± 3.8 cmH₂ O in PLMA™ group (P = 0.002). The time taken for successful insertion in PLMA™ was longer as compared to i-gel (12.4 ± 2.7 vs. 10.2 ± 1.9 s, P = 0.007). The quality of initial airway was superior with i-gel™. The number of attempts, ease of insertion of supraglottic device, insertion of orogastric tube and pulmonary mechanics were similar in both the groups.

Conclusion:

Size 2 i-gel™ exhibited superior oropharyngeal leak pressure and quality of airway in paediatric patients with controlled ventilation as compared to PLMA™ although the pulmonary mechanics were similar.

Comparison of the Disposable Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway and the Disposable I-gel in Anaesthetized, Paralyzed Adults: A Randomized Prospective Study

Introduction. This study compared streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) and I-gel noninflatable, single-use, supraglottic airway device (SAD) performance in anesthetized, paralyzed adults. Methods. Eighty adults (ASA physical statuses I–III) who were undergoing elective procedures under general anesthesia with an SAD were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Subjects were randomly and evenly assigned to the SLIPA or I-gel group for intraoperative airway management. Ease and number of insertions, insertion time, oropharyngeal sealing pressure, hemodynamic response, oxygen saturation (SpO₂), end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂), and peri- and postoperative complications were examined. Results. The SLIPA and I-gel devices were successfully inserted in 100% and 95% of subjects, respectively. In two I-gel subjects (5%), ventilation was not possible after two attempts, but a size 55 SLIPA was successfully inserted in both cases. Forty-two and 38 patients were ultimately included in the SLIPA and I-gel groups, respectively. Insertion time was significantly shorter with the SLIPA (11.19 ± 3.03 s) than with the I-gel (15.05 ± 6.37 s, P = 0.003). Oropharyngeal sealing pressure was significantly higher in SLIPA (28.76 ± 3.11 cmH₂O) than in I-gel (25.9 ± 3.65 cmH₂O) subjects (P = 0.001). Blood staining occurred more frequently in SLIPA (n = 8, 19.0%) than in I-gel (n = 5, 13.2%) patients (P < 0.01). Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, SpO₂, and EtCO₂ were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion. Although blood staining incidence was higher, SLIPA insertion was easier and faster than I-gel insertion. The SLIPA provided better airway sealing pressure. Both devices had similar mechanical ventilation and oxygenation characteristics and comparable hemodynamic stability. Both noninflatable SADs are useful, but SLIPA rapid insertion and good airway sealing make it an effective alternative to the I-gel.

Evaluation of i-gel(™) airway in children: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

I-gel(™) is a relatively newer addition in the pediatric anesthesia practice. Its comparison with the other laryngeal mask airway repor-ted a wide range of results. Randomized controlled trials where i-gel(™) has been compared with other laryngeal masks (laryngeal mask airway ProSeal(™) and laryngeal mask airway Classic(™) ) in children for airway management device during general anesthesia has been included in this meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed and Central Register of Clinical Trials of the Cochrane Collaboration for eligible controlled trials using following search words: 'i-gel', 'i-gel laryngeal mask airway', 'i-gel children', 'i-gel paediatric' until February 15, 2014. A total nine prospective randomized controlled trials have been included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Pooled analyses have found that i-gel(™) provided significantly higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than laryngeal mask airway ProSeal(™) [496 participants, mean difference 2.07 cm H2 O, 95% CI 0.52-3.62; P = 0.009] and a similar leak in comparison with laryngeal mask airway Classic(™) [355 participants, mean difference 1.73 cm H2 O, 95% CI -0.04, 3.51 cm H2 O; P =0.06]. No difference was found in first insertion success rate and ease of insertion between i-gel(™) , laryngeal mask airway ProSeal(™) , and laryngeal mask airway Classic(™) . Ease of gastric tube insertion is similar between i-gel(™) and laryngeal mask airway ProSeal(™) . Reported complications are infrequent and similar in all three devices.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that i-gel(™) is an effective alternative of the commonly used laryngeal mask airway ProSeal(™) and laryngeal mask airway Classic(™) in children for airway management during general anesthesia.