» Articles » PMID: 21572318

Performance of the Pediatric-sized I-gel Compared with the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask in Anesthetized and Ventilated Children

Overview
Journal Anesthesiology
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2011 May 17
PMID 21572318
Citations 29
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: This prospective, randomized, controlled trial compares the performance of the pediatric i-gel (Intersurgical Ltd., Wokingham, United Kingdom) with the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask (Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) in anesthetized and ventilated children.

Methods: With ethics committee approval and written informed consent, the authors included 208 children, aged 0-17 yr, scheduled for elective day-surgery under general anesthesia. The primary outcome variable was oropharyngeal leak pressure. Other outcome variables were first-attempt and overall success, time to sufficient ventilation, and adverse events.

Results: Demographic data did not differ between groups. The leak pressure of the i-gel was significantly higher than the leak pressure of the Ambu (mean ± SD: 22 ± 5 cm H₂O vs. 19 ± 3, P < 0.01). First-attempt success was 91% for the i-gel and 93% for the Ambu (P = 0.50). Overall success was 93% for the i-gel versus 98% for the Ambu (P = 0.10). Successfully inserted i-gels needed to be secured by taping in place to ensure the seal in 44% (0% with the Ambu, P < 0.01). Insertion was faster with the Ambu (24 ± 8 s vs. 27 ± 11, P = 0.02). There were no major side effects with either device.

Conclusions: The leak pressure of the i-gel was statistically but not clinically significantly higher than the leak pressure of the Ambu. Time to insertion was longer with the i-gel. Both airway devices are suitable for positive pressure ventilation with high success rates in infants and children. Because the i-gel is prone to sliding out, it must be taped in place to avoid loss of the airway.

Citing Articles

Dependence of Successful Airway Management in Neonatal Simulation Manikins on the Type of Supraglottic Airway Device and Providers' Backgrounds.

Sugiura T, Urushibata R, Fukaya S, Shioda T, Fukuoka T, Iwata O Children (Basel). 2024; 11(5).

PMID: 38790524 PMC: 11119467. DOI: 10.3390/children11050530.


Comparison of standard weight-based and thenar eminence dimension-based selection of I-gel in pediatric patients - A randomized controlled study.

Sachidananda R, Petkar L, Mitragotri M, Malipatil A J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2024; 39(4):642-647.

PMID: 38269191 PMC: 10805226. DOI: 10.4103/joacp.joacp_215_22.


Comparison of four different techniques of i-gel insertion by anaesthesia trainees in children undergoing daycare surgery: A single-blind, randomised, comparative study.

Priyadarshi P, Behera B, Misra S Indian J Anaesth. 2024; 67(Suppl 4):S232-S237.

PMID: 38187983 PMC: 10768895. DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_111_23.


Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of I-gelTM and BlockbusterTM laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized pediatric patients.

Selvin C, Singariya G, Bihani P, Kamal M, Paliwal N, Ujwal S Anesth Pain Med (Seoul). 2023; 18(1):51-56.

PMID: 36746902 PMC: 9902638. DOI: 10.17085/apm.22209.


Comparison of the clinical performance of i-gel and Ambu laryngeal masks in anaesthetised paediatric patients: A meta-analysis.

Bao D, Yu Y, Xiong W, Wang Y, Liang Y, Li L World J Clin Cases. 2022; 10(4):1242-1254.

PMID: 35211557 PMC: 8855187. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i4.1242.