Comparison of the Proseal LMA and intersurgical I-gel during gynecological laparoscopy

被引：29

作者：

Jeon, Woo Jae ^{[1
]}

Cho, Sang Yun ^{[1
]}

Baek, Seong Jin ^{[1
]}

Kim, Kyoung Hun ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Hanyang Univ, Guri Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Pain Med, 249-1 Gyomun Dong, Guri 471701, South Korea

来源：

KOREAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY | 2012年 / 63卷 / 06期

关键词：

I-gel; PLMA;

D O I：

10.4097/kjae.2012.63.6.510

中图分类号：

R614 [麻醉学];

学科分类号：

100217 ;

摘要：

Background: The relatively recently developed I-gel (Intersurgical Ltd., Workingham, England) is a supraglottic airway device designed for single-use that, unlike conventional LMAs, does not require an inflatable cuff. In addition, the I-gel, much like the Proseal LMA (PLMA), has a gastric drainage tube associated with an upper tube for decompression of the stomach, thereby avoiding acid reflux and decreasing the risk of pulmonary absorption. The purpose of this study was to compare PLMA and I-gel devices in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy based on sealing pressure before and during pneumoperitoneum, insertion time, and gas exchange. Methods: Following Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent, 30 adult patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups (the PLMA or I-gel group). In each case, insertion time and number of attempts were recorded. After successful insertion, airway leak pressure was measured. Results: Successful insertion and mechanical ventilation with both supraglottic airway devices was achieved on the first attempt in all 30 patients, and there were no significant differences with respect to insertion time. Likewise, leak pressure did not vary significantly either between or within groups after CO2 insufflation. In addition, differences between leak volume and leak fraction between groups were not significant. Conclusions: The results of our study indicate that the I-gel is a reasonable alternative to the PLMA for controlled ventilation during laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

引用

页码：510 / 514

页数：5

共 14 条

[1]

Uppal V., Gangaiah S., Fletcher G., Kinsella J., Randomized crossover comparison between the i-gel and the LMA-Unique in anaesthetized, paralysed adults, Br J Anaesth, 103, pp. 882-885, (2009)

[2]

Cattano D., Ferrario L., Maddukuri V., Sridhar S., Khalil Y., Hagberg C.A., A randomized clinical comparison of the Intersurgical i-gel and LMA Unique in non-obese adults during general surgery, Minerva Anesthesiol, 77, pp. 292-297, (2011)

[3]

Wharton N.M., Gibbison B., Gabbott D.A., Haslam G.M., Muchatuta N., Cook T.M., I-gel insertion by novices in manikins and patients, Anaesthesia, 63, pp. 991-995, (2008)

[4]

Francksen H., Renner J., Hanss R., Scholz J., Doerges V., Bein B., A comparison of the i-gel with The LMA-Unique™ in non-paralyzed anaesthetized patients, Anaesthesia, 64, pp. 1118-1124, (2009)

[5]

Richez B., Saltel L., Banchereau F., Torrielli R., Cros A.M., A new single use supraglottic airway device with a noninflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: An observational study of the i-gel, Anesth Analg, 106, pp. 1137-1139, (2008)

[6]

Gatward J.J., Cook T.M., Seller C., Handel J., Simpson T., Vanek V., Et al., Evaluation of the size 4 i-gel airway in 100 non-paralyzed patients, Anaesthesia, 63, pp. 1124-1130, (2008)

[7]

Bapat P.P., Verghese C., Laryngeal mask airway and the incidence of regurgitation during gynecological laparoscopies, Anesth Analg, 85, pp. 139-143, (1997)

[8]

Jeon W.J., Cho S.Y., Bang M.R., Ko S.Y., Comparison of volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation using a laryngeal mask airway during gynecological laparoscopy, Korean J Anesthesiol, 60, pp. 167-172, (2011)

[9]

Uppal V., Fletcher G., Kinsella J., Comparison of the i-gel with the cuffed tracheal tube during pressure-controlled ventilation, Br J Anaesth, 102, pp. 264-268, (2009)

[10]

Keller C., Brimacombe J.R., Keller K., Morris R., Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients, Br J Anaesth, 82, pp. 286-287, (1999)

← 1 2 →