» Articles » PMID: 26957697

Assessment of Suitability of I-gel and Laryngeal Mask Airway-supreme for Controlled Ventilation in Anesthetized Paralyzed Patients: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Overview
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2016 Mar 10
PMID 26957697
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Context: Laryngeal mask airway supreme (LMA-S) has an inflatable cuff while i-gel has a noninflatable cuff made of thermoplastic elastomer.

Aims: To study the efficacy of ventilation and the laryngeal seal pressures (LSPs) with either device. Our secondary objectives were to compare the ease of insertion, adequacy of positioning the device, hemodynamic response to device insertion, and any postoperative oropharyngeal morbidity.

Settings And Design: A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study at Teaching Medical School in South India.

Materials And Methods: Forty-two patients posted for surgery under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups - LMA-S and i-gel. After a standardized premedication and anesthesia induction sequence, the supra-glottic devices were introduced. Ease of insertion was assessed from the number of attempts taken to insert, insertion time, and any maneuvers required to insert the device. Position of the device was assessed by the ease of gastric catheter placement and the fibreoptic grading of laryngeal visualization. Efficacy of ventilation was determined from the LSP, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2)values. Any postoperative oropharyngeal morbidity was also recorded.

Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was reported as a mean and standard deviation, median, and range of continuous variables. Demographics were analyzed using a unpaired t-test for parametric data and Chi-square test for nonparametric data. Respiratory and hemodynamic data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA to find statistical difference within and between the two groups.

Results: LMA-S was successfully inserted in 95% of patients and i-gel in 85.5% of patients. There was a significant difference (P = 0.021) in the LSPs between the two groups (18.15 cmH2O in LMA-S and 21.28 cmH2O in the i-gel group). There was no significant difference in the PIPs, leak fraction, and the EtCO2values.

Conclusion: Both devices are suitable for positive pressure ventilation (PPV) in anesthetized paralyzed patients. However, i-gel gives a better laryngeal seal when compared to LMA-S and may be chosen preferentially for PPV.

Citing Articles

Application value of using a SaCo videolaryngeal mask airway combined with a bronchial blocker in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgery.

Chen Y, Ji N Am J Transl Res. 2025; 16(12):7678-7687.

PMID: 39822546 PMC: 11733321. DOI: 10.62347/WNAG4919.


Choice of supraglottic airway devices: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Kanakaraj M, Bhat A, Singh N, Balasubramanian S, Tyagi A, Aathreya R Br J Anaesth. 2024; 133(6):1284-1306.

PMID: 39406569 PMC: 11589487. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.001.


Efficacy of Baska mask and Laryngeal mask airway supreme during positive pressure ventilation - A comparative study.

Jayalekshmi S, Paul C, Thomas M J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2020; 36(1):31-36.

PMID: 32174654 PMC: 7047687. DOI: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_17_19.


Optimal propofol dosage for i-gel® insertion in healthy paralyzed patients.

Cho S, Sung T, Cho C, Jee Y, Kang P Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018; 71(1):22-29.

PMID: 29441171 PMC: 5809703. DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2018.71.1.22.


Comparison of i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway Classic™ in terms of ease of insertion and hemodynamic response: A randomized observational study.

Pratheeba N, Ramya G, Ranjan R, Remadevi R Anesth Essays Res. 2016; 10(3):521-525.

PMID: 27746545 PMC: 5062189. DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.180780.

References
1.
Helmy A, Atef H, El-Taher E, Henidak A . 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. PMC: 2980656. DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.71250. View

2.
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. PMC: 3590543. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.105798. View

3.
Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C, Kazmaier S, Brauer A, Graf B . Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 2009; 110(2):262-5. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181942c4d. View

4.
Janakiraman C, Chethan D, Wilkes A, Stacey M, Goodwin N . A randomised crossover trial comparing the i-gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 2009; 64(6):674-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.05898.x. View

5.
Ragazzi R, Finessi L, Farinelli I, Alvisi R, Volta C . LMA Supreme™ vs i-gel™--a comparison of insertion success in novices. Anaesthesia. 2012; 67(4):384-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.07002.x. View