Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in terms of clinical performance.
Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015 Sep-Oct; 65(5):343-8.BJ

Abstract

PURPOSE

The i-gel™ is one of the second generation supraglottic airway devices. Our study was designed to compare the i-gel and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ with respect to the clinical performance.

METHODS

We compared the performance of the i-gel with that of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic in 120 patients undergoing urologic surgery during general anesthesia without muscle relaxant with respect to the number of attempts for successful insertion, insertion time, peak airway pressure, incidence of regurgitation, fiberoptic glottic view and postoperative complications. Second generation supraglottic airway devices were inserted by the same anesthesiologist, experienced in use of both devices (>200 uses and first time failure rate <5%). Methylene blue method was used to detect gastric regurgitation.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding the success of insertion of second generation supraglottic airway device (p=0.951). The laryngeal mask insertion time for the i-gel group was significantly shorter than that for the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic group (11.6±2.4s versus 13.1±1.8s [p=0.001]). The fiberoptic glottic view scores for the i-gel group was significantly better than that for the ones for the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic group (p=0.001). On fiberoptic view, there was no sign of methylene blue dye at any time point in either group. In addition, there was no difference between the groups in patient response regarding the presence of a sore throat when questioned 24h after the procedure (p=0.752).

CONCLUSION

Both devices had good performance with low postoperative complications and without occurrence of regurgitation. The i-gel provided a shorter insertion time and a better fiberoptic view than the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Anesthesiology, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Research and Training Hospital Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: reyhanp9@gmail.com.Department of Anesthesiology, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Research and Training Hospital Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey.Department of Anesthesiology, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Research and Training Hospital Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey.Department of Anesthesiology, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Research and Training Hospital Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey.Department of Anesthesiology, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Research and Training Hospital Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey.Department of Anesthesiology, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Research and Training Hospital Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

26323731

Citation

Polat, Reyhan, et al. "Comparison of the I-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in Terms of Clinical Performance." Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (Elsevier), vol. 65, no. 5, 2015, pp. 343-8.
Polat R, Aydin GB, Ergil J, et al. Comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in terms of clinical performance. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015;65(5):343-8.
Polat, R., Aydin, G. B., Ergil, J., Sayin, M., Kokulu, T., & Öztürk, İ. (2015). Comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in terms of clinical performance. Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (Elsevier), 65(5), 343-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2014.02.009
Polat R, et al. Comparison of the I-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in Terms of Clinical Performance. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015 Sep-Oct;65(5):343-8. PubMed PMID: 26323731.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in terms of clinical performance. AU - Polat,Reyhan, AU - Aydin,Gözde Bumin, AU - Ergil,Jülide, AU - Sayin,Murat, AU - Kokulu,Tuğba, AU - Öztürk,İbrahim, Y1 - 2014/03/06/ PY - 2014/01/18/received PY - 2014/02/05/accepted PY - 2015/9/2/entrez PY - 2015/9/2/pubmed PY - 2017/1/12/medline KW - Dispositivos supraglóticos KW - Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic KW - Máscara laríngea clássica KW - Supraglottic airway devices KW - i-gel SP - 343 EP - 8 JF - Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier) JO - Braz J Anesthesiol VL - 65 IS - 5 N2 - PURPOSE: The i-gel™ is one of the second generation supraglottic airway devices. Our study was designed to compare the i-gel and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ with respect to the clinical performance. METHODS: We compared the performance of the i-gel with that of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic in 120 patients undergoing urologic surgery during general anesthesia without muscle relaxant with respect to the number of attempts for successful insertion, insertion time, peak airway pressure, incidence of regurgitation, fiberoptic glottic view and postoperative complications. Second generation supraglottic airway devices were inserted by the same anesthesiologist, experienced in use of both devices (>200 uses and first time failure rate <5%). Methylene blue method was used to detect gastric regurgitation. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding the success of insertion of second generation supraglottic airway device (p=0.951). The laryngeal mask insertion time for the i-gel group was significantly shorter than that for the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic group (11.6±2.4s versus 13.1±1.8s [p=0.001]). The fiberoptic glottic view scores for the i-gel group was significantly better than that for the ones for the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic group (p=0.001). On fiberoptic view, there was no sign of methylene blue dye at any time point in either group. In addition, there was no difference between the groups in patient response regarding the presence of a sore throat when questioned 24h after the procedure (p=0.752). CONCLUSION: Both devices had good performance with low postoperative complications and without occurrence of regurgitation. The i-gel provided a shorter insertion time and a better fiberoptic view than the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic. SN - 0104-0014 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/26323731/Comparison_of_the_i_gel™_and_the_Laryngeal_Mask_Airway_Classic™_in_terms_of_clinical_performance_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0104-0014(14)00027-X DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -