Title: Comparison of Clinical Performance of the I-Gel with Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Classic-A Randomized Study
Authors: G.Srinivas Rao, Shivani.V, R. Pandu Naik*, Mahender Kanuri
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v4i2.44
Background: Maintenance of airway is an integral part of general anaesthesia. Various airway devices are used for this purpose. Hemodynamic changes are major hazards of general endotracheal anesthesia and are probably generated by direct laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Aim: present study was undertaken to compare the performance of two supraglottic airway devices classic laryngeal mask airway and i-gel in anaesthetized, paralyzed adult patients posted for elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. Methodology: One hundred patients, scheduled for various elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia belonging to ASA class I and II were included in the study and were randomly divided into two groups with 50 patients in each group. In Group I (n=50), i-gel supraglottic airway device was used and in Group L (n=50) classic laryngeal mask airway (c-LMA)was used. Both the devices were compared in relation to the ease of insertion, number of insertion attempts, time of insertion, airway leak pressure, haemodynamic changes, intra and post operative complications. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the devices with respect to ease of insertion and number of attempts of insertion. The mean airway leak pressure with i-gel was significantly higher as compared with c-LMA (26.14±2.57 and19.76±2.04 cm H2O, respectively, p=0.0001). The mean time of insertion for i-gel was 17.26±2.9 secs which was significantly shorter compared to c-LMA with a mean insertion time of 24.9±4.8 secs (p=0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in haemodynamic changes and the postoperative complications between the devices. Conclusion: Both i-gel and c-LMA are easy to insert and provide an effective airway during positive pressure ventilation, with i-gel providing a better airway sealing pressure as compared to c-LMA. Key words: Supraglottic airway device, Laryngeal mask airway , Haemodynamic changes. 1. Pennant JH, White PF. The laryngeal mask airway: Its uses in anaesthesiology. Anaesthesiology 1993;79:144-163. 2. Helmy AM, Atef HM, El-Taher EM, Henidak AM. Comparative study between i-gel, a new supraglottic airway device, and classical laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized spontaneously ventilated patients, Saudi J Anaesth 2010;4(3):131-6. 3. Dorsch JA, Dorsch SE. Understanding Anesthesia Equipment. 4. Richez B, Saltelf L, Banchereaur, Torrielli, Cros AM. A New Single Use Supraglottic Airway Device with a Noninflatable Cuff and an Esophageal Vent: An Observational Study of the i-gel. Anesth Analg 2008;106(4):1137-9. 5. Kannaujia A, Srivastava U, Saraswat N, Mishra A, Kumar A, Saxena S. A Preliminary Study of i-gel:A New Supraglottic Airway. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 2009;53(1):52-6. 6. Brimacombe J. The advantages of LMA over the tracheal tube or face mask: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 1995;42(11) :1017-23. 7. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Bittersohl J, Lirk P, Goedecke A. Aspiration and the laryngeal mask airway: three cases and a review of the literature, British Journal of Anaesthesia 2004;93(4):579-82. 8. Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T, Bogusch G, Mager G, Kerner T. Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device i-gel TM in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways Classic and ProSeal using a cadaver model. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009;102(1):135-9. 9. Jindal P, Rizvi A, Sharma JP. Is i-gel a new revolution among supraglottic airway devices? A comparative evaluation. MEJ Anesth 2009;20(1):53-8. 10. Uppal V, Gangaiah S, Fletcher G, Kingsella J. Randomized crossover comparison between the i-gel and the LMA-Unique in anaesthetized, paralysed adults. Br J Anaesth 2009;103(6):882-5. 11. Franksen H, Renner J, Hanss R, Scholz J, Doerges V, Bein B. A comparison of the i-gel™ with the LMA-Unique in non-paralysed anaesthetised adult patients. Anaesthesia 2009;64:1118-24. 12. Amini S, Khoshfetrat M. Comparison of the Intersurgical Solus laryngeal mask airway and the i-gel supralaryngeal device. Anaesthesia 2010;65(8):805-9. 13. Siddiqui AS, Raees US,Siddiqui SZ, Haider S, Raza SA. Comparison of performance and safety of i-gel with laryngeal mask airway (classic) for general anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. Anaesth, Pain and Intensive Care 2010;14(1):17-20. 14. Uppal V, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Comparison of the i-gel with the cuffed tracheal tube during pressure-controlled ventilation. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009;102:264-8. 15. F Ali A, Ali L, Sheikh NA, Siddique SA. Airway device: comparison of i-gel supraglottic with laryngeal mask airway. Professional Med J 2010 Dec;17(4):643-7. 16. Janakiraman C, Chethan DB, Wilkes AR, Stacey MR, Goodwin N. A randomised crossover trial comparing the i-gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2009;64:674-8. 17. Keijzer C, Buitelaar DR, Efthymiou KM, Sramek M, Cate J, Ronday M, et al. A Comparison of postoperative throat and neck complaints after the use of the i-gel and the La Premiere disposable laryngeal mask: A double blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Anaesthesia and Analgesia 2009;109(4):1092-5.Abstract
References