I-GEL™ VS. AURAONCE™ LARYNGEAL MASK FOR GENERAL ANAESTHESIA WITH CONTROLLED VENTILATION IN PARALYZED PATIENTS

被引:17
|
作者
Donaldson, William [1 ]
Abraham, Alexander [1 ]
Deighan, Mairead [2 ]
Michalek, Pavel [1 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Antrim Area Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia, Antrim BT41 2RL, North Ireland
[2] Royal Victoria Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia, Belfast BT12 6BA, Antrim, North Ireland
[3] Charles Univ Prague, Fac Med 1, Dept Anaesthesiol & Intens Care, Prague 12808 2, Czech Republic
[4] Gen Univ Hosp, Prague 12808 2, Czech Republic
来源
BIOMEDICAL PAPERS-OLOMOUC | 2011年 / 155卷 / 02期
关键词
Laryngeal mask; Intermittent positive-pressure ventilation; Airway pressure; Postoperative complications; SUPRAGLOTTIC AIRWAY DEVICE; I-GEL; DIFFICULT AIRWAY; ESOPHAGEAL VENT; LMA-UNIQUE; ASPIRATION; PRESSURE; ROCURONIUM; PROSEAL; CUFF;
D O I
10.5507/bp.2011.023
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Aims. The i-gel (TM) and the AuraOnce (TM) laryngeal mask are supraglottic airway devices used for airway management during general anaesthesia. Both devices are cheap, disposable and widely used. They may be used with both spontaneous and controlled ventilation. This study compared differences in the seal and peak pressures, and postoperative complications in these devices when used in paralyzed patients under controlled ventilation. Methods. A prospective randomized trial was designed to compare the igel (TM) and the AuraOnce (TM) in paralyzed adult patients under conditions of controlled ventilation. Two hundred and four patients (ASA class 1-3, age 18-89, weight 46-115 kg) were enrolled in the study. Standardized anaesthesia (fentanyl, propofol and sevoflurane in air-oxygen) was administered including neuromuscular blockade. The primary outcome measure was the difference in seal airway pressures between the two devices. Secondary outcome measures included peak airway pressures, insertion data and postoperative profiles - the incidence of sore throat, swallowing difficulties, numb tongue, hearing difficulties, neck pain, nausea and vomiting. Results. First time insertions were 85.6% (i-gel) and 82% (AuraOnce) with overall success rates 96.3% (i-gel) and 94.2% (AuraOnce) (p=0.54). Average insertion times were 11.0 s (i-gel) and 11.6 s (AuraOnce) (p=0.19). Seal pressures were 30.4 cmH(2)O (i-gel) and 27.8 cmH(2)O (AuraOnce) (p=0.007). Peak pressures were 15.3 cmH(2)O (i-gel) and 15.6 cmH(2)O (AuraOnce) (p=0.57). Traumatic insertion occurred in 5.8% of igel (TM) and 2% of AuraOnce (TM) insertions. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was low, with the i-gel (TM) causing less sore throat and difficulty swallowing at 24h. Conclusion. Both devices provided effective seals for ventilation under positive pressure. I-gel (TM) may be a better alternative for the procedures with controlled ventilation because of higher seal pressures and lower incidence of sore throat postoperatively.
引用
收藏
页码:155 / 163
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Performance of the Pediatric-sized i-gel Compared with the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask in Anesthetized and Ventilated Children
    Theiler, Lorenz G.
    Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren
    Luepold, Barbara
    Stucki, Franziska
    Seiler, Stefan
    Urwyler, Natalie
    Greif, Robert
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2011, 115 (01) : 102 - 110
  • [2] Comparison of the i-gel™ with the AuraGain™ laryngeal mask airways in patients with a simulated cervical immobilization: a randomized controlled trial
    Hur, Min
    Choi, Seungeun
    Row, Hyung S.
    Kim, Tae K.
    MINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA, 2020, 86 (07) : 727 - 735
  • [3] The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients
    Shin, Won-Jung
    Cheong, Yu-Seon
    Yang, Hong-Seuk
    Nishiyama, Tomoki
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2010, 27 (07) : 598 - 601
  • [4] A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel® vs laryngeal mask airway in adults
    de Montblanc, J.
    Ruscio, L.
    Mazoit, J. X.
    Benhamou, D.
    ANAESTHESIA, 2014, 69 (10) : 1151 - 1162
  • [5] Comparison of Outcome of Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA Classic) and I-Gel Devices in Patients Undergoing General Anaesthesia in Elective Surgeries
    Dar, Shahid Rasool
    Hussain, Riaz
    Nazeer, Tahir
    Tahir, Amna
    PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SCIENCES, 2015, 9 (03): : 1036 - 1038
  • [6] Application of PEEP using the i-gel during volume-controlled ventilation in anesthetized, paralyzed patients
    Yong Beom Kim
    Young Jin Chang
    Wol Seon Jung
    Sang Ho Byen
    Youn Yi Jo
    Journal of Anesthesia, 2013, 27 : 827 - 831
  • [7] Application of PEEP using the i-gel during volume-controlled ventilation in anesthetized, paralyzed patients
    Kim, Yong Beom
    Chang, Young Jin
    Jung, Wol Seon
    Byen, Sang Ho
    Jo, Youn Yi
    JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA, 2013, 27 (06) : 827 - 831
  • [8] Comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in terms of clinical performance
    Polat, Reyhan
    Aydin, Gozde Bumin
    Ergil, Julide
    Sayin, Murat
    Kokulu, Tugba
    Ozturk, Ibrahim
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA, 2015, 65 (05): : 343 - 348
  • [9] Clinical Comparison of I-gel and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Supreme Airway Devices During General Anaesthesia in the Paediatric Population
    Aggarwal, Manish
    Yadav, Rahul
    Singh, Shalendra
    Bansal, Deepali
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY AND REANIMATION, 2021, 49 (03) : 244 - 249
  • [10] Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel™ in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation
    Teoh, W. H. L.
    Lee, K. M.
    Suhitharan, T.
    Yahaya, Z.
    Teo, M. M.
    Sia, A. T. H.
    ANAESTHESIA, 2010, 65 (12) : 1173 - 1179