Volume: 7 Issue: 3
Year: 2019, Page: 69-78,
BACKGROUND: Laryngeal mask airway is a supraglottic airway device with an inflatable cuffforming a low-pressure seal around the laryngeal inlet and permitting ventilation. Thei-gel is a novel supraglottic airway device made of thermoplastic elastomer which is soft,gel-like and transparent. Unlike conventional LMA, it does not have an inflatable cuff.The present study was undertaken to compare the performance oftwo supraglottic airway devices classic laryngeal mask airway and i-gel in anesthetized,paralyzed adult patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia.
METHODS: One hundred patients, scheduled for various elective surgical procedures undergeneralanesthesia belonging to ASA class I and II were included in the study and wererandomly divided into two groups with 50 patients in each group. In Group 1 (n=50), I gelsupraglottic airway device was used and Group 2 (n=50) classic laryngeal maskairway was used. Both the devices were compared concerning the ease of insertion, the number of insertion attempts, time of insertion, airway leak pressure, hemodynamic changes, intraoperative and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the devices concerning ease of insertion and the number of attempts of insertion. The mean airway leak pressurewith igel was significantly higher as compared with c-LMA 26.38±2.76 and19.7±2.10 cm H2O, respectively. The mean time of insertion for i-gel was17.12±3.42 secs which was significantly shorter compared to c-LMA with a meaninsertion time of 25.62±5.28 secs. There were no statistically significantdifferences in hemodynamic changes and the postoperative complications between thedevices.
CONCLUSION: Both i-gel and c-LMA are easy to insert and provide an effective airway during positive pressure ventilation, with i-gel providing a better airway sealing pressure as compared to c-LMA.
Keywords: Laryngeal mask airway; i-gel; supraglottic airway device
1. Pennant JH, White PF. The laryngeal mask airway: Its uses in anesthesiology. Anaesthesiology 1993;79:144-63.
2. Helmy AM, Atef HM, El-Taher EM, Henidak AM. 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):131-36.
3. Kovac AL. Controlling the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 1996;8:63-79.
4. Prys-Roberts C, Green LT, Meloche R, Foex P. Studies of anesthesia in relation to hypertension II. Hemodynamic consequences of induction and endotracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 1971;43:531-47.
5. Dalton B, Guiney T. Myocardial ischemia from tachycardia and hypertensionin coronary heart disease – Patients undergoing anesthesia. Boston: Ann Mtg American Society of Anesthesiologists; 1972;201-02.
6. Richez B, Saltelf L, Banchereaur, Torrielli, Cros AM. ANew Single-UseSupraglottic Airway Device with a Non-inflatable Cuff and an EsophagealVent: An Observational Study of the i-gel. AnesthAnalg 2008;106(4):1137-39.
7. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Bitters ohl J, Lirk P, Goedecke A. Aspiration and the laryngeal mask airway: three cases and a review of the literature, British Journal of Anesthesia 2004;93(4):579-82.
8. Kannaujia A, Srivastava U, Saraswat N, Mishra A, Kumar A, Saxena S. APreliminary Study of i-gel:ANew Supraglottic Airway. Indian Journal ofAnesthesia 2009;53(1):52-56.
9. Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T, Bogusch G, Mager G, Kerner T. Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device i-gel TM in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways Classic and Pro Seal using a cadaver model. British Journal of Anesthesia 2009;102(1):135-39.
10. Uppal V, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Comparison of the i-gel with the cuffed tracheal tube during pressure-controlled ventilation. British Journal of Anesthesia 2009; 102:264-68.
11. Siddiqui AS, Raees US, Siddiqui SZ, Haider S, Raza SA. Comparison of performance and safety of i-gel with laryngeal mask airway (classic) for general anesthesia with controlled ventilation. Anaesth, Pain and Intensive Care 2010;14(1):17-20.
12. Ali A, Ali L, Sheikh NA, Siddique SA. Airway device: comparison of i-gel supraglottic with laryngeal mask airway. Professional Med J 2010 Dec; 17(4):643-47.
13. Janakiraman C, Chethan DB, Wilkes AR, Stacey MR, Goodwin N. A randomized cross over trial comparing the i-gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesia 2009;64:674-78.
14. Jindal P, Rizvi A, Sharma JP. Is i-gel a new revolution among supraglottic airway devices? Acomparative evaluation. MEJAnesth 2009;20(1):53-58.
15. Franksen H, Renner J, Hanss R, Scholz J, Doerges V, Bein B. Acomparison of thei-gel™ with the LMA-Unique in non-paralyzed anesthetized adult patients. Anesthesia 2009;64:1118-24.
16. Amini S, Khoshfetrat M. Comparison of the IntersurgicalSolus laryngeal mask airway and the i-gel supralaryngeal device. Anesthesia 2010; 65(8):805-09.
17. Ali A, Ali L, Sheikh NA, Siddique SA. Airway device: comparison of i-gel supraglottic with laryngeal mask airway. Professional Med J 2010 Dec; 17(4):643-47.
Reddy V, Mudgalkar N.Ease of insertion of laryngeal mask airway by classic and I Gel supraglottic airway devices- A comparative study. Perspectives in Medical Research 2019; 7(3): 69-78