A Comparison Of Ease Of Insertion AndWorking Performance Of Pro-seal And I Gel - The Supra Glottic Airway Devices In Elective Surgeries
A Comparison Of Ease Of Insertion AndWorking Performance Of Pro-seal And I Gel - The Supra Glottic Airway Devices In Elective Surgeries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v7i2.1363Keywords:
I gel, PLMA, expired tidal volume, leak pressure, leak volumeAbstract
Background: PLMA has improved features of cuff design and incorporation of gastric drain channel led to
better seal achievement around the glottis. I gel single-use, cuff less, utilizes a thermoplastic elastomer to create a
more intimate interface for interaction with the supraglottic tissue. Supraglottic airway devices provide good seal
during anaesthesia for spontaneously breathing and controlled ventilation with moderate airway pressures.
Methodology: Hundred patients from routine elective surgical procedure were randomized to receive mechanical
ventilation, through either I gel or PLMA. Insertion characteristics, working performance, ease of gastric tube
insertion and hemodynamic characteristics was assessed. Results: The shorter insertion time (Group I was 20.98 ±
2.29 sec and Group P 30.04 ± 2.6 sec; P value <0.05) was found with I gel as compared to PLMA. There was no
statistical difference in insertion attempts, ease of insertion, failure of insertion and airway manipulation. The success
and ease of gastric tube placement was more with I gel than with PLMA. Expired tidal volume and leak pressures
were better with group P as compared to group I and the leak volume was insignificant in both the groups. The
incidence of sore throat and blood staining was similar in both the groups. Conclusion: In comparison to PLMA, I gel is
a cheaper, easier to insert, requires less manipulation and cuff inflation is not needed. It has other potential
advantages like easier gastric tube placement and fewer traumas to oropharyngeal structure.[Murthy A NJIRM 2016;
7(2): 87-92]
References
American Heart Association (AHA) in collaboration
with the International Liaison Committee on
Resuscitation (ILCOR): International Guidelines
2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and
Emergency Cardiac Care. An InternationalConsensus on Science. Resuscitation. 2000; 6:29–
71.
2. Peppard SB, Dickens JH. Laryngeal injury following
short-term intubation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.
1983; 92:327–30.
3. Bein B, Scholz J. Supraglottic airway devices. Best
pract res clin anaesthesiol. 2005; 19(4): 581-93
4. Gabbott DA, Beringer R. The I-gel airway: A
potential role for resuscitation? Resuscitation.
2007; 73:161–2.
5. Brimacombe J. The advantages of the LMA over
the tracheal tube or facemask:
a meta analysis. Can J Anesth 1995; 42: 1017-23.
6. Fuji Y, Tanaka H. Circulatory response to laryngeal
mask airway insertion or
tracheal intubation in normotensive and
hypertensive patients. Can J Anaesth
1995; 42: 32-36
7. Dr. Divatia J. V, Dr. Bhowmick K. complications of
endotracheal intubation and other airway
management procedures Indian J. Anaesth. 2005;
49 (4): 308 – 318.
8. Singh I, Gupta M, Tandon M. Comparison of
Clinical Performance of I-Gelâ„¢ with LMA-Proseal in
Elective Surgeries. Indian J Anaesth. 2009; 53:302–
5.
9. Soar J. The I-gel supraglottic airway and
resuscitation—some initial thoughts. Resuscitation
2007; 74: 197
10. Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal
mask airway. A randomized, crossover study with
the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed,
anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 2000;
93:104–109.
11. Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal
mask airway. Anesth Clin N Amer 2002; 20:871–
891.
12. Kannaujia A, Srivastava U, Saraswat N, Mishra A,
Kumar A, Saxena S. A preliminary study of I-gel: A
new supraglottic airway device. Indian J Anaesth.
2009; 53:52–6.
13. R. F Danha , S. Sreevathsa et al. Positive Pressure
Ventilation with i-gel versus LMA- Unique: A
Randomised Comparative Study Danha, et al. J
Anesthe Clinic Res 2011, 2:11
14. Wharton NM, Gibbison B, Gabbott DA, Haslam
GM, Muchatuta N, Cook TM. I-gel insertion by
novices in manikins and patients. Anaesthesia.
2008; 63:991–995.
15. Jindal P, Rizvi A, Sharma JP. Is I-gel a new
revolution among supraglottic airway devices? A
comparative evaluation. Middle East J Anesthesiol.
2009; 20:53–8.
16. Gaurav Chauhan, Pavan Nayar, Anita Seth, Kapil
Gupta, Mamta Panwar, Nidhi Agrawal: Comparison
of clinical performance of the I gel with LMA
Proseal: Indian Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical
Pharmacology | Jan – Mar 2013 | Vol 29 | Issue 1.
17. V Trivedi, B Patil: A Clinical comparative study of
evaluation of Proseal LMA vs. I gel for the ease of
insertion and hemodynamic stability; A study of 60
cases. The Internet Journal of Anaesthesiology,
number 2, Volume 27, 2009.
