DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-2156.IntJSciRep20163110

A comparative study between i-gel and classical laryngeal mask airway in elective surgery under general anaesthesia

Smita R. Engineer, Digant B. Jansari, Saumya Saxena, Rahul D. Patel

Abstract


Background: Supraglottic airway devices have been widely used as an alternative to tracheal intubation during general anesthesia both in adults and children. This study was carried out to compare classical laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and i-gel, regarding ease of insertion, adequate placement of device, ability to maintain ETCO2 and SPO2, perioperative hemodynamic parameters and intra operative and postoperative complication.

Methods: This prospective, randomized clinical study was done on 100 patients of either sex, age between 5 to 60 years, ASA grade I-III who underwent different surgical procedures under general anesthesia in supine position. After giving premedication, induction of anesthesia was done with inj. Propofol 2-3 mg/kg and inj. Succnylcoline 1.5-2 mg/kg. In “sniffing air” position, airway was secured with either LMA or i-gel. An effective placement of device was checked by a square wave capnography, normal chest expansion, SPO2 >95%, and absence of audible leak. Patients were observed for time and ease of insertion, number of attempts, perioperative hemodynamic changes and complications.

Results: No statistically significant difference was reported between both the groups, regarding heart rate, BP, SPO2 and ETCO2. Duration of insertion was more in group LMA. Insertion was easy and was possible in first attempt in 88% of patients without much manipulation in group i-gel.

Conclusions: I-gel is a better alternative supraglottic airway device than LMA in view of ease of insertion with minimal manipulations and minimal complications. Hemodynamic parameters, SPO2 and ETCO2 were maintained in both the groups. 


Keywords


Classical LMA, I-gel, Supraglottic airway devices, Hemodynamic comparison

Full Text:

PDF

References


Gal TJ. Airway management. In: Miller RD, editor. Textbook of anaesthesia. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2005: 1617–1652.

Brain AIJ. The laryngeal mask. A new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesthesia. 1983;55:801-5.

I -gel User Guide, 7th Edn. Wokingham, UK: Intersurgical Ltd, 2009. www.i-gel.com

LMA. Technical guideline and use in special situation. Iraqui Post Graduate Medical Journal. 2006;5(2).

Wharton NM, Gibbison B, Gabbott DA, Haslam GM, Muchatuta N, Cook TM. I-gel insertion by novices in manikins and patients. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:991–5.

Levitan RM, Kinkle WC. Initial anatomic investigations of the I-gel airway: a novel supraglottic airway without inflatable cuff. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:1022–6.

Keller C, Lopez Gil. Comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients. Paediatric Anaesth. 2001;11(3):319-21.

Uppall V, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Comparison of i-gel with cuffed tracheal tube in pressure controlled ventilation. Oxford Journal. 2008;102;264-8.

Singh I, Gupta M, Tandon M. Comparison of clinical performance of i‑gel with LMA Proseal in Elective surgeries. Indian J Anaesthesia. 2009;53:302-5.

Kini G, Devana GM, Mukkapati KR, Chaudhuri S, Thomas D. comparison of i-gel with procel LMA in adult patients undergoing surgical procedure under general anaesthesia. JOACP. 2014;30(2):182.

Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Beek SJ, Kim KH. Comparison of the Proseal LMA and intersurgical I-gel during gynaecological laparoscopy. Korean Journal. 2012;63(6):510-4.

Chauhan G, Nayar P, Seth A, Gupta K, Panwar M, Agrawal N. Comparison of clinical performance of the I-gel with LMA Proseal. Indian Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology. 2013; 29(1):56-60.

Kannaujia A, Srivastava U, Saraswat N, Mishra A, Kumar A, Saxena S. A preliminary study of I-gel: A new supraglottic airway device. Indian J Anaesth. 2009;53:52-6.

Richez B, Saltel L, Banchereau F. A new single use supraglottic airway device with a non inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study of the I-gel. Anaesthesia and Analgesia. 2008;106:1137–9.

Helmy AM, Atef HM, El-Taher EM, Henidak AM. Comparative study between i-gel and lma in anaesthetized spontaneously ventilating patients. SJA. 2010;4(3):131-6.

Singh J, Yadav MK, Marahatta SB, Shrestha B. IJA. 2012;6(4):348-52.

Trivedi V, Patil B. A Clinical Comparative Study Of Evaluation Of Proseal LMA V/S I-GEL For Ease Of Insertion And Hemodynamic Stability: A Study Of 60 Cases. The Internet Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2009;27(2):1-7.

Das B, Mitra S, Samanta A, Vijay BS. Comparison of i‑gel supraglottic device with classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed children undergoing elective surgery Anaesthesia. Essays and Researches. 2012;6(2):180-3.

Chen X, Jiao J, Cong X, Liu L, Wu X. Comparasion of i-gel vs. LMA. Plos One. 2013;8(8):71910.

Cook TM, Gibbison B. Analysis of 1000 consecutive uses of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway by one anaesthetist at a district general hospital. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2007;99(3):436–9.