BACKGROUND: i-gel™ and the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) are two supraglottic airway devices with gastric channel used for airway maintenance in anesthesia. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of i-gel compared with PLMA for airway maintenance in pediatric patients under general anesthesia with controlled ventilation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 patients were included in the study and randomized to either i-gel or PLMA group. After induction of anesthesia using a standardized protocol for all the patients, one of supraglottic airway devices was inserted. Insertion parameters, ease of gastric tube insertion and fiber-optic scoring of the glottis were noted. Airway parameters such as end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), peak airway pressures and leak airway pressures were noted. Patients were observed for any complications in the first 12 h of the post-operative period. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in terms of ease of insertion, number of attempts and other insertion parameters. Ease of gastric tube insertion, EtCO2, airway pressures (peak and leak airway pressure) and fiber-optic view of the glottis were comparable in both groups. There were no clinically significant complications in the first 12 h of the post-operative period. CONCLUSION: i-gel is as effective as PLMA in pediatric patients under controlled ventilation.
CONTEXT: The newest variation of the i-gel supraglottic airway is a pediatric version. AIMS:
This study was designed to investigate the usefulness of the size 2 i-gel compared with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) and classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) of the same size in anesthetized, paralyzed children. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital. METHODS: Ninety ASA grade I-II patients undergoing lower abdominal, inguinal and orthopedic surgery were included in this prospective study. The patients were randomly assigned to the i-gel, PLMA and cLMA groups (30 patients in each group). Size 2 supraglottic airway was inserted according to the assigned group. We assessed ease of insertion, hemodynamic data, oropharyngeal sealing pressure and postoperative complications. RESULTS: There were no differences in the demographic and hemodynamic data among the three groups. The airway leak pressure of the i-gel group (27.1±2.6 cmH(2)O) was significantly higher than that of the PLMA group (22.73±1.2 cmH(2)O) and the cLMA group (23.63±2.3 cmH(2)O). The success rates for first attempt of insertion were similar among the three devices. There were no differences in the incidence of postoperative airway trauma, sore throat or hoarse cry in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic parameters, ease of insertion and postoperative complications were comparable among the i-gel, PLMA and cLMA groups, but airway sealing pressure was significantly higher in the i-gel group.
In 1988, when the Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic (Intavent Orthofix, Maidenhead, UK), was introduced there were only two choices of airway management: tracheal tube or facemask. The supraglottic airway, as we now understand the term, did not exist. Yet, 20 years later, we are faced with an ever increasing choice of supraglottic airway devices (SAD). For many SADs, with the exception of the LMA-Classic and LMA-Proseal (Intavent Orthofix, Maidenhead, UK), there is a lack of high quality data of efficacy. The best evidence requires a randomized controlled trial comparing a new device against an established alternative, properly powered to detect clinically relevant differences in clinically important outcomes. Such studies in children are very rare. Safety data is even harder to establish particularly for rare events such as aspiration. Therefore, most safety data comes from extended use rather than high quality evidence which inevitably biases against newer devices. For reason of these factors, claims of efficacy and particularly safety must be interpreted cautiously. This narrative review aims to present the evidence surrounding the use of currently available pediatric SADs in routine anesthetic practice.