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

      Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of air-Q™, i-gel™, and laryngeal mask airway supreme™ in adult patients during general anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial

      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.


          Study Objective:

          Various randomized controlled trials and a meta-analysis have compared i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ (LMA-S™) in adult patients and found that both the devices provided equivalent oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). However, no randomized controlled trial has compared air-Q™ with i-gel™ and LMA-S™ in adult patient. Hence, we designed this study to compare air-Q™ with LMA-S™ and i-gel™ in adult patients.

          Materials and Methods:

          A total of 75 adult patients of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II of both sexes, between 18 and 60 years, were included in this prospective randomized controlled trial conducted in a tertiary care center. Randomization of patients was done in three equal groups according to the insertion of supraglottic airway device by a computer-generated random number sequence: group air-Q™ ( n = 25), group i-gel™ ( n = 25), and group LMA-S™ ( n = 25). Primary outcome of this study was OLP. We also recorded time for successful placement of device, ease of device insertion, number of attempts to insert device, and ease of gastric tube insertion along with postoperative complications.


          The mean ± standard deviation OLP of air-Q™, i-gel™, and LMA-S™ was 26.13 ± 4.957 cm, 23.75 ± 5.439 cm, and 24.80 ± 4.78 cm H 2O ( P = 0.279). The first insertion success rate for air-Q™, i-gel™, and LMA-S™ was 80%, 76%, and 92%, respectively ( P = 0.353). The insertion time of air-Q™, i-gel™, and LMA-S™ was 20.6 ± 4.4, 14.8 ± 5.4, and 15.2 ± 4.7 s, respectively ( P = 0.000). Time taken for air-Q™ insertion was significantly higher than time taken for i-gel™ (mean difference 5.8 s, P < 0.0001) and LMA-S™ (mean difference 5.4 s, P = 0.0001) insertion. Postoperative complications were similar with all three devices.


          We concluded that air-Q™, i-gel™, and LMA-S™ were equally efficacious in terms of routine airway management in adult patients with normal airway anatomy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 21

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

          Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: anaesthesia.

          This project was devised to estimate the incidence of major complications of airway management during anaesthesia in the UK and to study these events. Reports of major airway management complications during anaesthesia (death, brain damage, emergency surgical airway, unanticipated intensive care unit admission) were collected from all National Health Service hospitals for 1 yr. An expert panel assessed inclusion criteria, outcome, and airway management. A matched concurrent census estimated a denominator of 2.9 million general anaesthetics annually. Of 184 reports meeting inclusion criteria, 133 related to general anaesthesia: 46 events per million general anaesthetics [95% confidence interval (CI) 38-54] or one per 22,000 (95% CI 1 per 26-18,000). Anaesthesia events led to 16 deaths and three episodes of persistent brain damage: a mortality rate of 5.6 per million general anaesthetics (95% CI 2.8-8.3): one per 180,000 (95% CI 1 per 352-120,000). These estimates assume that all such cases were captured. Rates of death and brain damage for different airway devices (facemask, supraglottic airway, tracheal tube) varied little. Airway management was considered good in 19% of assessable anaesthesia cases. Elements of care were judged poor in three-quarters: in only three deaths was airway management considered exclusively good. Although these data suggest the incidence of death and brain damage from airway management during general anaesthesia is low, statistical analysis of the distribution of reports suggests as few as 25% of relevant incidents may have been reported. It therefore provides an indication of the lower limit for incidence of such complications. The review of airway management indicates that in a majority of cases, there is 'room for improvement'.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Difficult Airway Society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult intubation.

             M Popat,  ,  I Latto (2004)
            Problems with tracheal intubation are infrequent but are the most common cause of anaesthetic death or brain damage. The clinical situation is not always managed well. The Difficult Airway Society (DAS) has developed guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation in the non-obstetric adult patient without upper airway obstruction. These guidelines have been developed by consensus and are based on evidence and experience. We have produced flow-charts for three scenarios: routine induction; rapid sequence induction; and failed intubation, increasing hypoxaemia and difficult ventilation in the paralysed, anaesthetised patient. The flow-charts are simple, clear and definitive. They can be fully implemented only when the necessary equipment and training are available. The guidelines received overwhelming support from the membership of the DAS. It is not intended that these guidelines should constitute a minimum standard of practice, nor are they to be regarded as a substitute for good clinical judgement.
              • 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.

                Author and article information

                Saudi J Anaesth
                Saudi J Anaesth
                Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                Oct-Dec 2017
                : 11
                : 4
                : 390-395
                Department of Anaesthesia, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Dr. Sameer Sethi, Department of Anaesthesia, Nehru Hospital, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh - 160 012, India. E-mail: sameersethi29@ 123456gmail.com
                Copyright: © 2017 Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                Original Article


                Comment on this article