+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal™ (Teleflex® Inc., Wayne, PA, USA) and i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, UK) in adults undergoing general anesthesia.


          Searches of MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, CENTRAL, KoreaMed and Google Scholar® were performed. The primary objective was to compare OLP; secondary objectives included comparison of clinical performance and complications.


          Fourteen RCTs were included. OLP was significantly higher with LMA ProSeal™ than with i-gel® (mean difference [MD] −2.95 cmH 2O; 95% confidence interval [CI] −4.30, −1.60). The i-gel® had shorter device insertion time (MD −3.01 s; 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™.


          LMA ProSeal™ provides superior airway sealing compared to i-gel®.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients.

          We have compared four tests for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) to test the hypothesis that airway sealing pressure and inter-observer reliability differ between tests. We studied 80 paralysed, anaesthetized adult patients. Four different airway sealing pressure tests were performed in random order on each patient by two observers blinded to each other's measurements: test 1 involved detection of an audible noise; test 2 was detection of end-tidal carbon dioxide in the oral cavity; test 3 was observation of the aneroid manometer dial as the pressure increased to note the airway pressure at which the dial reached stability; and test 4 was detection of an audible noise by neck auscultation. Mean airway sealing pressure ranged from 19.5 to 21.3 cm H2O and intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.95-0.99. Inter-observer reliability of all tests was classed as excellent. The manometric stability test had a higher mean airway sealing pressure (P < 0.0001) and better inter-observer reliability (P < 0.0001) compared with the three other tests. We conclude that for clinical purposes all four tests are excellent, but that the manometric stability test may be more appropriate for researchers comparing airway sealing pressures.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Initial anatomic investigations of the I-gel airway: a novel supraglottic airway without inflatable cuff.

             R M Levitan,  W Kinkle (2005)
            The I-gel airway is a novel supraglottic airway that uses an anatomically designed mask made of a gel-like thermoplastic elastomer. We studied the positioning and mechanics of this new device in 65 non-embalmed cadavers with 73 endoscopies (eight had repeat insertion), 16 neck dissections, and six neck radiographs. A full view of the glottis (percentage of glottic opening score 100%) occurred in 44/73 insertions, whereas only 3/73 insertions had epiglottis-only views. Including the eight repeat insertions with a different size, a glottic opening score of > 50% was obtained in all 65 cadavers. The mean percentage of glottic opening score for the 73 insertions was 82% (95% confidence interval 75-89%). In each of the neck dissections and radiographs the bowl of the device covered the laryngeal inlet. We found that the I-gel effectively conformed to the perilaryngeal anatomy despite the lack of an inflatable cuff and it consistently achieved proper positioning for supraglottic ventilation.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device I-Gel in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways Classic and ProSeal using a cadaver model.

              Supraglottic airway devices are increasingly used in anaesthesia and emergency medicine. This study was designed to investigate the oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device, I-Gel (I-Gel), in comparison with two of the laryngeal mask airways, Classic (cLMA) and ProSeal (pLMA), in a model of elevated oesophageal pressure. The three supralaryngeal airway devices were inserted into eight unfixed cadaver models with exposed oesophagi that had been connected to a water column producing both a slow and a fast oesophageal pressure increase. The pressure applied until the loss of oesophageal seal during a slow and fast pressure increase was measured. During the slow increase of pressure, the pLMA withstood an oesophageal pressure up to a median of 58 cm H(2)O, while the cLMA was able to block the oesophagus up to a median of 37 cm H(2)O, and I-Gel already lost its seal at 13 cm H(2)O. One minute after maximum pressure had been applied, the pLMA withstood an oesophageal pressure of 59 cm H(2)O, the cLMA of 46 cm H(2)O, and I-Gel airway of 21 cm H(2)O. A fast release of oesophageal fluid was accomplished through the oesophageal lumen of both the pLMA and I-Gel. Both the pLMA and cLMA provided a better seal of the oesophagus than the novel I-Gel airway. The pLMA and I-Gel drain off gastrointestinal fluid fast through the oesophageal lumen. Thus, tracheal aspiration may be prevented with their use. Further study is necessary.

                Author and article information

                J Int Med Res
                J. Int. Med. Res
                The Journal of International Medical Research
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                23 March 2016
                June 2016
                : 44
                : 3
                : 405-418
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
                [2 ]Institute for Evidence-based Medicine, Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
                Author notes
                Hye Won Shin, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, 126-1 Anam-dong 5-ga, Seongbuk-gu 136-705, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Email: hwshin99@ 123456yahoo.com
                © The Author(s) 2016

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).



                Comment on this article