» Articles » PMID: 22324968

Directly Measured Mucosal Pressures Produced by the I-gel™ and Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ in Paralysed Anaesthetised Patients

Overview
Journal Anaesthesia
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2012 Feb 14
PMID 22324968
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The i-gel™ and LMA Supreme™ are extraglottic airway devices with non-inflatable and inflatable cuffs, respectively. We hypothesised that directly measured mucosal pressures would differ between these devices in anesthetised paralysed patients. Thirty patients were randomly allocated to receive one of these two devices. Four pressure sensors were attached to all airway devices used to measure mucosal pressure at the base of the tongue, the distal oropharynx, the hypopharynx and the pyriform fossa. At these four places, median (IQR [range]) i-gel mucosal pressures were 8.0 (2.7-10.7 [0-26.7]), 5.0 (2.7-7 [1.0-37.3]), 9.3 (2.7-13.3 [0-22.7] and 8.0 (2.7-10.7 [0-25.3]) cmH(2)O, respectively, and for the LMA Supreme, these were 5.0 (0.5-8.0 [0-33]), 4.0 (1.3-9.3 [0-24]), 10.7 (4-17.3 [0-26.7]) and 8.0 (0-10.7 [0-36]) cmH(2)O, respectively. Mucosal pressures were low and similar for both devices. The LMA Supreme mucosal pressures were higher in the hypopharynx than in the distal oropharynx (p = 0.04) and base of the tongue (p = 0.011). There were no pressure differences between the locations for the i-gel.

Citing Articles

Comparison of Ambu AuraGain at low cuff pressure, Ambu AuraGain at high cuff pressure and i-gel in relation to incidence of postoperative upper airway complications.

Deepak G, Kumar R, Agarwal M, Bharadwaj M, Kumar N, Sarma R Indian J Anaesth. 2021; 65(6):439-444.

PMID: 34248186 PMC: 8252994. DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_189_21.


A prospective, randomized comparison of the LMA-protector™ and i-gel™ in paralyzed, anesthetized patients.

Chang J, Kim H, Lee J, Min S, Won D, Jun K BMC Anesthesiol. 2019; 19(1):118.

PMID: 31272379 PMC: 6610917. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-019-0785-8.


Superior sealing effect of a three-dimensional printed modified supraglottic airway compared with the i-gel in a three-dimensional printed airway model.

Kimijima T, Edanaga M, Yamakage M J Anesth. 2018; 32(5):655-662.

PMID: 30022284 DOI: 10.1007/s00540-018-2531-7.


Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of air-Q™, i-gel™, and laryngeal mask airway supreme™ in adult patients during general anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial.

Damodaran S, Sethi S, Malhotra S, Samra T, Maitra S, Saini V Saudi J Anaesth. 2017; 11(4):390-395.

PMID: 29033717 PMC: 5637413. DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_149_17.


Evaluation of the optimal cuff volume and cuff pressure of the revised laryngeal tube "LTS-D" in surgical patients.

Kriege M, Alflen C, Eisel J, Ott T, Piepho T, Noppens R BMC Anesthesiol. 2017; 17(1):19.

PMID: 28152975 PMC: 5290637. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-017-0308-4.