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

      Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Objectives:

          The objectives of the study were to compare the insertion facility, the effect on hemodynamic parameters, and effective ventilation using I-gel versus Air-Q supraglottic airway devices (SADs) for pediatric patients undergoing short-duration surgical procedures.

          Patients and Methods:

          One hundred and fifty children aged 3–10 years were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group I received I-gel and Group Q received Air-Q SAD. All patients were anesthetized by sevoflurane inhalation using a face mask without neuromuscular blockade. Study outcomes included SAD insertion success rate (SR), insertion time, anatomic alignment of the SAD to the larynx as judged using fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) inserted through the SAD, and tidal volume leak, and incidence of postoperative complications.

          Results:

          Total and first attempt SRs were 97.3% and 85.3% for I-gel and 94.7% and 82.7% respectively, for Air-Q with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel insertion time (12.3 ± 3.6 s.) was significantly ( P = 0.034) shorter than Air-Q (13.7 ± 4.2 s). FOB grading of laryngeal view through SAD was better with I-gel but without significant difference for patients who had view Grades 1-2. Percentage of tidal volume loss was significantly decreased at 5 min after insertion than immediately after insertion, in all patients, with a nonsignificant difference in favor of I-gel. Intraoperative hemodynamic changes and postoperative complications showed a nonsignificant difference between both the groups.

          Conclusion:

          Both Air-Q and I-gel SAD provided advantages for pediatric anesthesia during short-duration surgical procedure with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel SAD required a shorter insertion time and provided a high SR which is satisfactory for trainees and during an emergency. I-gel SAD allowed minimization of tidal volume leak and gastric inflation and is associated with infrequent complications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

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

          Crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask supreme and the i-gel in simulated difficult airway scenario in anesthetized patients.

          The single-use supraglottic airway devices LMA-Supreme (LMA-S; Laryngeal Mask Company, Henley-on-Thames, United Kingdom) and i-gel (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, Berkshire, United Kingdom) have a second tube for gastric tube insertion. Only the LMA-S has an inflatable cuff. They have the same clinical indications and might be useful for difficult airway management. This prospective, crossover, randomized controlled trial was performed in a simulated difficult airway scenario using an extrication collar limiting mouth opening and neck movement. Sixty patients were included. Both devices were placed in random order in each patient. Primary outcome was overall success rate. Other measurements were time to successful ventilation, airway leak pressure, fiberoptic glottic view, and adverse events. Success rate for the LMA-S was 95% versus 93% for the i-gel (P = 1.000). LMA-S needed shorter insertion time (34 +/- 12 s vs. 42 +/- 23 s, P = 0.024). Tidal volumes and airway leak pressure were similar (LMA-S 26 +/- 8 cm H20; i-gel 27 +/- 9 cm H20; P = 0.441). Fiberoptic view through the i-gel showed less epiglottic downfolding. Overall agreement in insertion outcome was 54 (successes) and 1 (failure) or 55 (92%) of 60 patients. The difference in success rate was 1.7% (95% CI -11.3% to 7.6%). Both airway devices had similar insertion success and clinical performance in the simulated difficult airway situation. The authors found less epiglottic downfolding and better fiberoptic view but longer insertion time with the i-gel. Our study shows that both devices are feasible for emergency airway management in patients with reduced neck movement and limited mouth opening.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients.

            This study compares four tests for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA). We tested the hypothesis that the oropharyngeal leak pressure and interobserver reliability differs between tests. Eighty paralysed anaesthetized paediatric patients (weight 10-30 kg) were studied with the intracuff pressure set at 60 cmH2O. Four different oropharyngeal leak 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 involved detection of endtidal CO2 in the oral cavity. Test 3 involved observation of the aneroid manometer dial as the pressure increased and noting the airway pressure at which the dial reaches stability. Test 4 involved detection of an audible noise by neck stethoscopy. The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure was 12.5 cmH2O and was similar between tests. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.99 for all tests and was classed as excellent. We conclude that all four tests provide accurate and reliable information about oropharyngeal leak pressure in children.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluation of i-gel(™) airway in children: a meta-analysis.

              I-gel(™) is a relatively newer addition in the pediatric anesthesia practice. Its comparison with the other laryngeal mask airway repor-ted a wide range of results. Randomized controlled trials where i-gel(™) has been compared with other laryngeal masks (laryngeal mask airway ProSeal(™) and laryngeal mask airway Classic(™) ) in children for airway management device during general anesthesia has been included in this meta-analysis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Anesth Essays Res
                Anesth Essays Res
                AER
                Anesthesia, Essays and Researches
                Wolters Kluwer - Medknow (India )
                0259-1162
                2229-7685
                Jul-Sep 2020
                22 March 2021
                : 14
                : 3
                : 461-466
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Anesthesia and ICU, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Dr. Ayman Anis Metry, Department of Anesthesia and ICU, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. E-mail: drayman_metri@ 123456med.asu.edu.eg
                Article
                AER-14-461
                10.4103/aer.AER_107_20
                8159035
                4e86ec10-51d9-4285-9e41-db14b23dfd55
                Copyright: © 2021 Anesthesia: Essays and Researches

                This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                : 08 December 2020
                : 01 January 2021
                : 15 February 2021
                Categories
                Original Article

                air-q,i-gel,insertion success rate,insertion time,postinsertion complications,supraglottic airway devices

                Comments

                Comment on this article