Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal and i-gel® in adults: Meta-analysis and systematic review

被引:24
作者
Shin, Hye Won [1 ]
Yoo, Hae Na [1 ]
Bae, Go Eun [1 ]
Chang, Jun Chul [1 ]
Park, Min Kyung [1 ]
You, Hae Seun [1 ]
Kim, Hyun Jung [2 ]
Ahn, Hyung Sik [2 ]
机构
[1] Korea Univ, Anam Hosp, Coll Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Pain Med, 126-1 Anam Dong 5-Ga, Seoul 136705, South Korea
[2] Korea Univ, Coll Med, Dept Prevent Med, Inst Evidence Based Med, Seoul 136705, South Korea
关键词
Airway sealing; equipment; i-gel (R); laryngeal mask airway proseal; leak; meta-analysis; LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY; I-GEL; SUPRAGLOTTIC AIRWAY; ASPIRATION; ANESTHESIA;
D O I
10.1177/0300060515607386
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal (Teleflex (R) Inc., Wayne, PA, USA) and i-gel (R) (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, UK) in adults undergoing general anesthesia. Methods Searches of MEDLINE (R), EMBASE (R), CENTRAL, KoreaMed and Google Scholar (R) were performed. The primary objective was to compare OLP; secondary objectives included comparison of clinical performance and complications. Results Fourteen RCTs were included. OLP was significantly higher with LMA ProSeal than with i-gel (R) (mean difference [MD] -2.95cmH(2)O; 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.30, -1.60). The i-gel (R) had shorter device insertion time (MD -3.01s; 95% CI -5.80, -0.21), and lower incidences of blood on device after removal (risk ratio [RR] 0.32; 95% CI 0.18, 0.56) and sore throat (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35, 0.89) than LMA ProSeal. Conclusion LMA ProSeal provides superior airway sealing compared to i-gel (R).
引用
收藏
页码:405 / 418
页数:14
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], J ANESTH CLIN RES
[2]  
[Anonymous], INTERNET J ANESTHESI
[3]   REGURGITATION OF GASTRIC CONTENTS DURING GENERAL-ANESTHESIA USING THE LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY [J].
BARKER, P ;
LANGTON, JA ;
MURPHY, PJ ;
ROWBOTHAM, DJ .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1992, 69 (03) :314-315
[4]  
Chauhan Gaurav, 2013, J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol, V29, P56, DOI 10.4103/0970-9185.105798
[5]   A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel® vs laryngeal mask airway in adults [J].
de Montblanc, J. ;
Ruscio, L. ;
Mazoit, J. X. ;
Benhamou, D. .
ANAESTHESIA, 2014, 69 (10) :1151-1162
[6]   THE LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY AND POSITIVE-PRESSURE VENTILATION [J].
DEVITT, JH ;
WENSTONE, R ;
NOEL, AG ;
ODONNELL, MP .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1994, 80 (03) :550-555
[7]   Comparison of guided insertion of the LMA ProSeal™ vs the i-gel™ [J].
Gasteiger, L. ;
Brimacombe, J. ;
Perkhofer, D. ;
Kaufmann, M. ;
Keller, C. .
ANAESTHESIA, 2010, 65 (09) :913-916
[8]   Case series: protection from aspiration and failure of protection from aspiration with the i-gel airway [J].
Gibbison, B. ;
Cook, T. M. ;
Seller, C. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2008, 100 (03) :415-417
[9]   Influence of neuromuscular blockade on the airway leak pressure of the ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway [J].
Goldmann, K ;
Hoch, N ;
Wulf, H .
ANASTHESIOLOGIE INTENSIVMEDIZIN NOTFALLMEDIZIN SCHMERZTHERAPIE, 2006, 41 (04) :228-232
[10]  
Hayashi Kentaro, 2013, Masui, V62, P134