41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of the I-Gel and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal during General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      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

          Conflicting results have been reported for the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal (LMA-P) during general anesthesia. The objective of the current investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of the i-gel vs. the LMA-P during general anesthesia.

          Methods

          Two authors performed searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar to identify randomized clinical trials that compared the LMA-P with the i-gel during general anesthesia. A meta -analysis was performed using both random and fixed-effect models. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's linear regression test.

          Results

          Twelve randomized clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. There were no significant differences in insertion success rate at the first attempt (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97, 1.06), ease of insertion (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93, 1.39), oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) (MD -1.98, 95% CI -5.41, 1.45), quality of fiberoptic view (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91, 1.10) and success rate of gastric tube insertion (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98, 1.18) between the i-gel and the LMA-P, respectively. The i-gel had a shorter insertion time than the LMA-P (MD -3.99, 95% CI -7.13, -0.84) and a lower incidence of blood staining on the device (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14, 0.49), sore throat (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15, 0.50) and dysphagia (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10, 0.74).

          Conclusions

          Both devices were comparable in ease of insertion to insert and both had sufficient OLP to provide a reliable airway. Only a few minor complications were reported. The i-gel was found to have fewer complications (blood staining, sore throat, dysphagia) than the LMA-P and offers certain advantages over the LMA-P in adults under general anesthesia.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

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

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

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The LMA 'ProSeal'--a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent.

            We describe a new laryngeal mask airway (LMA) that incorporates a second tube placed lateral to the airway tube and ending at the tip of the mask. The second tube is intended to separate the alimentary and respiratory tracts. It should permit access to or escape of fluids from the stomach and reduce the risks of gastric insufflation and pulmonary aspiration. It can also determine the correct positioning of the mask. A second posterior cuff is fitted to improve the seal. A preliminary crossover comparison with the standard mask in 30 adult female patients showed no differences in insertion, trauma or quality of airway. At 60 cm H2O intracuff pressure, the new LMA gave twice the seal pressure of the standard device (P < 0.0001) and permitted blind insertion of a gastric tube in all cases. It is concluded that the new device merits further study.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients.

              The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) is a new laryngeal mask device with a modified cuff to improve seal and a drainage tube to provide a channel for regurgitated fluid and gastric tube placement. In the present randomized, crossover study, the authors tested the hypothesis that ease of insertion, airway sealing pressure, and fiberoptic position differ between the PLMA and the standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA). For the PLMA, we also assess ease of gastric tube placement and the efficacy of an introducer tool. Sixty paralyzed, anesthetized adult patients were studied. Both devices (only size 4) were inserted into each patient in random order. Airway sealing pressure and fiberoptic position were determined during cuff inflation from 0 to 40 ml in 10-ml increments. Gastric tube insertion was attempted with the PLMA if there was no gas leak from the drainage tube. In 60 additional patients, ease of insertion for the PLMA was compared with and without an introducer. First-time success rates were higher (60 of 60 vs. 52 of 60; P = 0.003) and the effective airway time shorter (9 +/- 3 s vs20 +/- 18 s; P < 0.0001) for the LMA. There were no failed uses of either device within three attempts. Airway sealing pressure was 8-11 cm H2O higher for the PLMA at all cuff volumes (P < 0.00001) and was higher in females for both devices. Fiberoptic position was better with the LMA at all cuff volumes (P < 0.00001), but vocal cord visibility was similar (LMA, 59 of 60; PLMA, 56 of 60). For the PLMA, gastric tube placement was successful in 58 of 58 patients and took 9 +/- 5 s. First-time success rates were higher (59 of 60 vs53/60; P = 0.03) and the effective airway time shorter (15 +/- 13 s vs 23 +/- 18 s; P = 0.008) with the introducer. The PLMA is capable of achieving a more effective seal than the LMA and facilitates gastric tube placement, but it is more difficult to insert unless an introducer tool is used. When correctly positioned, the PLMA isolates the glottis from the upper esophagus with possible implications for airway protection.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                26 March 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 3
                : e0119469
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Jeju National University, JeJu, Korea
                [2 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [3 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, SungKyunKwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                University of Colorado, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: HK YSC EJA. Performed the experiments: SKP GJC. Analyzed the data: GJC HK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SKP EJA. Wrote the paper: SKP GJC EJA. Reviewed manuscript critically: YSC HK.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-39046
                10.1371/journal.pone.0119469
                4374933
                25812135
                f747c1c5-b9b3-42b7-b72e-f4c405bdebf2
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 30 August 2014
                : 19 January 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Pages: 12
                Funding
                The authors have no support or funding to report.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article