DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20222856
Published: 2022-10-28

Comparative study of Igel with proseal LMA for ease of insertion and effect on hemodynamics in pediatric patients

Nashrah Ashraf, Owais-ul-umer Zargar, Ayat Albina, Ayaz Farooqi

Abstract


Background: Supraglottic airway devices offer several advantages over endotracheal tube with regards to ease of insertion, hemodynamic stability, decreased airway morbidity, reduced requirement of drugs and smoother emergence from anesthesia.  Objective was to compare two supraglottic airway devices, Igel and proseal LMA, with respect to ease of insertion, number of insertion attempts, time taken for placement of device and hemodynamic changes.

Methods: This prospective, randomized observational study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in India after obtaining approval from the ethical committee of the institute. Sample size consisted of 80 patients who were randomized into two groups with each group having 40 patients.

Results: In our study it was found that Igel was easier to insert in 95% of the patients as compared to proseal laryngeal mask airway, whose insertion was found easy in 77.5% of the patients. There was higher success rate in first attempt insertion for Igel as compared to proseal laryngeal mask airway. 95% of the patients had successful device insertion in single attempt in group Igel and 77.5% of the patients had successful device insertion in single attempt in proseal laryngeal mask airway group. Time taken to insert Igel was significantly less (15.2 seconds) as compared to proseal laryngeal mask airway (26.1 seconds).

Conclusions: The ease of insertion of Igel is better as compared to insertion of proseal laryngeal mask airway. The success rate in first attempt insertion for Igel is higher as compared to proseal laryngeal mask airway. Time taken to insert Igel was significantly less as compared to proseal laryngeal mask airway. However, there was no difference in hemodynamic parameters and oxygen saturation between the two groups.


Keywords


Igel, Laryngeal mask airway, Proseal, Supraglottic devices, Ventilation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Orhan T, Tufek A, Gokhan S, Yuksel MU. Comparison of the efficacies of I-gel and LMA-ProSeal for airway management in pediatric patients. Turk J Med Sci. 2013;43:208-13.

Holm-Knudsen RJ, Rasmussen LS. Paediatric airway management: basic aspects. Acta Anesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:1-9.

White MC, Cook TM, Stoddart PA. A critique elective of pediatric supraglottic airway devices. Paediatric Anesth. 2009;19:55-65.

Holm-Knudsen RJ, Rasmussen LS. Pediatric airway management: basic aspects. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2008;20:961-75.

Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, Cros AM . The I- gel, a single use supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:376-9.

Sahin A, Tufek A, Cingu AK, Caca I, Tokgoz O, Balsak S. The effect of I-gel airway on intraocular pressure in pediatric patients who received sevoflurane or desflurane during strabismus surgery. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22:772-5.

Karabiyik LS, Emmez G. The effects of the Cobra perilaryngeal airway on intraocular pressure. Turk J Med Sci. 2012;42:667-73.

Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Alvarez M. Safety and efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway: a prospective survey of 1400 children. Anesthesia. 1996;51:969-72.

Singh I, Gupta M, Tandon M. Comparison of clinical performance of I-gel with LMA-proseal in elective surgeries. Indian J Anaesth. 2009;53(3):302-5.

Chauhan G, Nayar P, Seth A, Gupta K, Panwar M, Agrawal N. Comparison of clinical performance of the I-gel with LMA Proseal. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29(1):56-60.

Levitan RM, Kinkle WC. Initial anatomic investigations of the I-gel airway: a novel supraglottic airway without inflatable cuff. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:1022-6.

Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T, Bogusch G, Mager G, Kerner. Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device I-Gel in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways Classic and ProSeal using a cadaver model. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:135-9.

Miller DM. A proposed classification and scoring system for supraglottic sealing airways: a brief review. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:1553-9.

Asai T, Morris S. The laryngeal mask airway: its features, effects and role. Can J Anaesth. 1994;41:930-60.

Michalek P, Miller D. M. Airway management evolution- in a search for an ideal extraglottic airway device. Prague Med Rep. 2014;115(34):87-103.

Valentine J, Stakes AF, Bellamy MC. Reflux during positive pressure ventilation through the laryngeal mask. Br J Anaesth. 1994;73:543-4.

Pratibha SD, Patil V, Patil B, Sorganvi V, Comparison of two supraglottic airways- I-gel and proseal laryngeal mask airway for ease of insertion and hemodynamic stability. Indian J Clin Anaesth. 2017;4(3):400-5.

Jadhav PA, Dalvi NP, Tendolkar BA. I-gel versus laryngeal mask airway proseal: comparison of two supraglottic airway devices in short surgical procedures. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015;31(2):221-5.