Comparison of I-gel for General Anesthesia in Obese and Nonobese Patients

Overview

Journal Saudi J Anaesth

Specialty Anesthesiology

Date 2018 Nov 16

PMID 30429733

Citations 8

Authors

Rati Prabha

Rajesh Raman

Mohammad Parvez Khan

Dinesh Kaushal

Ahsan Khaliq Siddiqui

Haider Abbas

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Context: I-gel is a second-generation supraglottic airway device. Despite several studies on i-gel, there are very few studies on the use of i-gel in obese patients.

Aims: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical performance of i-gel between obese and nonobese patients.

Settings And Design: Prospective, controlled, nonrandomized, hospital-based study.

Subjects And Methods: After obtaining informed consent, patients were divided into two groups of 16 patients each: group O consisted of patients with body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m and Group C consisted of patients with BMI 18.5-29.9 kg/m. I-gel was inserted after induction of anesthesia and muscle relaxation. Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) (primary outcome variable), leak fraction, time taken to insert the device, ease of insertion, fiberoptic view of glottis through i-gel's airway tube, and adverse effects were recorded.

Statistical Analysis Used: Data were analyzed using SPSS 20. Continuous, ordinal, and categorical variables were analyzed using students -test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Fischer's exact test, respectively.

Results: OLP was slightly higher in Group O (25.38 ± 4.79 cm HO) but was not statistically different than Group C (27.38 ± 4.38 cm HO). Other parameters except weight and BMI (which were higher in Group O) were statistically similar in both groups. There was no statistical difference in side effects.

Conclusions: We concluded that i-gel is as effective in obese patients as in nonobese patients when used for securing the airway for surgical procedures.

Citing Articles

Influence of patient body weight on the probability of return of spontaneous circulation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an exploratory analysis.

Hubble M, Kaplan G, Martin M Br Paramed J. 2024; 9(2):11-20.

PMID: 39246831 PMC: 11376325. DOI: 10.29045/14784726.2024.9.9.2.11.

Supraglottic airway devices: a powerful strategy in airway management.

Zhang K, Zhou M, Zou Z, Zhu C, Jiang R Am J Cancer Res. 2024; 14(1):16-32.

PMID: 38323274 PMC: 10839323.

Comparison of clinical performance of Baska mask and Ambu AuraGain in patients undergoing surgery: A single-blinded, randomised comparative trial.

Raman R, Prabha R, Rampal S, Tiwari T, Gautam S, Prakash R Indian J Anaesth. 2024; 67(Suppl 4):S227-S231.

PMID: 38187974 PMC: 10768903. DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_152_23.

Comparing leak pressure of LMA ProSeal™ versus i-gel at head rotation: a randomized controlled trial.

Chaki T, Koizumi M, Tachibana S, Matsumoto T, Kumagai T, Hashimoto Y Can J Anaesth. 2023; 71(1):66-76.

PMID: 38017196 DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02648-3.

The effect of class 3 obesity on the functionality of supraglottic airway devices: a historical cohort analysis with propensity score matching.

Hartsuyker P, Kanczuk M, Lawn D, Beg S, Mengistu T, Hiskens M Can J Anaesth. 2023; 70(11):1744-1752.

PMID: 37833471 DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02582-4.

References

Komayama N, Kamata K, Maruyama T, Nitta M, Muragaki Y, Ozaki M . [Perioperative management of an obese patient complicated with sleep apnea syndrome (SAS) undergoing awake craniotomy]. Masui. 2015; 63(10):1117-21. View

de Lloyd L, Subash F, Wilkes A, Hodzovic I . A comparison of fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation through the Ambu ® Aura-i ™, the intubating laryngeal mask airway and the i-gel ™: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2015; 70(5):591-7. DOI: 10.1111/anae.12988. View

Shi Y, Zuo M, Du X, Yu Z . [Comparison of the efficacy of different types of laryngeal mask airways in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2013; 93(25):1978-80. View

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

Nicholson A, Cook T, Smith A, Lewis S, Reed S . Supraglottic airway devices versus tracheal intubation for airway management during general anaesthesia in obese patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (9):CD010105. PMC: 11180383. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010105.pub2. View

Beringer R, Kelly F, Cook T, Nolan J, Hardy R, Simpson T . A cohort evaluation of the paediatric i-gel(™) airway during anaesthesia in 120 children. Anaesthesia. 2011; 66(12):1121-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06884.x. View

Bamgbade O, MacNab W, Khalaf W . Evaluation of the i-gel airway in 300 patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008; 25(10):865-6. DOI: 10.1017/S0265021508004511. View

Jeon W, Cho S, Baek S, Kim K . Comparison of the Proseal LMA and intersurgical I-gel during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2013; 63(6):510-4. PMC: 3531529. DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2012.63.6.510. View

Nightingale C, Margarson M, Shearer E, Redman J, Lucas D, Cousins J . Peri-operative management of the obese surgical patient 2015: Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland Society for Obesity and Bariatric Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 2015; 70(7):859-76. PMC: 5029585. DOI: 10.1111/anae.13101. View

10.

Russo S, Cremer S, Galli T, Eich C, Brauer A, Crozier T . Randomized comparison of the i-gel™, the LMA Supreme™, and the Laryngeal Tube Suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessments in elective patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012; 12:18. PMC: 3434115. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2253-12-18. View

11.

Theiler L, Gutzmann M, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Urwyler N, Kaempfen B, Greif R . i-gel™ supraglottic airway in clinical practice: a prospective observational multicentre study. Br J Anaesth. 2012; 109(6):990-5. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aes309. View

12.

Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, Cros A . 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(3):376-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01869.x. View

13.

Ekinci O, Abitagaoglu S, Turan G, Sivrikaya Z, Bosna G, Ozgultekin A . The comparison of ProSeal and I-gel laryngeal mask airways in anesthetized adult patients under controlled ventilation. Saudi Med J. 2015; 36(7):885. View

14.

Pratheeba N, Ramya G, Ranjan R, Remadevi R . Comparison of i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway Classic™ in terms of ease of insertion and hemodynamic response: A randomized observational study. Anesth Essays Res. 2016; 10(3):521-525. PMC: 5062189. DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.180780. View

15.

de Lloyd L, Hodzovic I, Voisey S, Wilkes A, Latto I . Comparison of fibrescope guided intubation via the classic laryngeal mask airway and i-gel in a manikin. Anaesthesia. 2009; 65(1):36-43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06155.x. View

16.

Shin W, Cheong Y, Yang H, Nishiyama T . The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009; 27(7):598-601. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283340a81. View

17.

Polat R, Bumin Aydin G, Ergil J, Sayin M, Kokulu T, Ozturk I . Comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in terms of clinical performance. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015; 65(5):343-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.02.009. View

18.

Wharton N, Gibbison B, Gabbott D, Haslam G, Muchatuta N, Cook T . I-gel insertion by novices in manikins and patients. Anaesthesia. 2008; 63(9):991-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05542.x. View

19.

Jagannathan N, Sohn L, Ramsey M, Huang A, Sawardekar A, Sequera-Ramos L . A randomized comparison between the i-gel™ and the air-Q™ supraglottic airways when used by anesthesiology trainees as conduits for tracheal intubation in children. Can J Anaesth. 2014; 62(6):587-94. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-014-0304-9. View

20.

Park S, Choi G, Choi Y, Ahn E, Kang H . Comparison of the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal during general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015; 10(3):e0119469. PMC: 4374933. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119469. View