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

Theiler, Lorenz; Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren; Kaiser, Dagmar; Urwyler, Natalie; Luyet, Cedric; Vogt, Andreas; Greif, Robert; Unibe, M M E (2009). Crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask supreme and the i-gel in simulated difficult airway scenario in anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology, 111(1), pp. 55-62. Hagerstown, Md.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181a4c6b9

Full text not available from this repository.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Item Type:	Journal Article (Original Article)
Division/Institute:	04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Intensive Care, Emergency Medicine and Anaesthesiology (DINA) > Clinic and Policlinic for Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy
UniBE Contributor:	Theiler, Lorenz, Kleine-Brüggeney, Maren, Kaiser Niedhart, Dagmar Julika, Urwyler, Natalie Sandra, Luyet, Cédric, Vogt, Andreas, Greif, Robert
Subjects:	600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health
ISSN:	0003-3022
Publisher:	Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Language:	English
Submitter:	Jeannie Wurz
Date Deposited:	04 Oct 2013 15:11
Last Modified:	05 Dec 2022 14:21
Publisher DOI:	10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181a4c6b9
PubMed ID:	19512881
Web of Science ID:	000267346200012
URI:	https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/31276 (FactScience: 195714)