I-GEL™ VS. AURAONCE™ LARYNGEAL MASK FOR GENERAL ANAESTHESIA WITH CONTROLLED VENTILATION IN PARALYZED PATIENTS

被引:17
|
作者
Donaldson, William [1 ]
Abraham, Alexander [1 ]
Deighan, Mairead [2 ]
Michalek, Pavel [1 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Antrim Area Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia, Antrim BT41 2RL, North Ireland
[2] Royal Victoria Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia, Belfast BT12 6BA, Antrim, North Ireland
[3] Charles Univ Prague, Fac Med 1, Dept Anaesthesiol & Intens Care, Prague 12808 2, Czech Republic
[4] Gen Univ Hosp, Prague 12808 2, Czech Republic
来源
BIOMEDICAL PAPERS-OLOMOUC | 2011年 / 155卷 / 02期
关键词
Laryngeal mask; Intermittent positive-pressure ventilation; Airway pressure; Postoperative complications; SUPRAGLOTTIC AIRWAY DEVICE; I-GEL; DIFFICULT AIRWAY; ESOPHAGEAL VENT; LMA-UNIQUE; ASPIRATION; PRESSURE; ROCURONIUM; PROSEAL; CUFF;
D O I
10.5507/bp.2011.023
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Aims. The i-gel (TM) and the AuraOnce (TM) laryngeal mask are supraglottic airway devices used for airway management during general anaesthesia. Both devices are cheap, disposable and widely used. They may be used with both spontaneous and controlled ventilation. This study compared differences in the seal and peak pressures, and postoperative complications in these devices when used in paralyzed patients under controlled ventilation. Methods. A prospective randomized trial was designed to compare the igel (TM) and the AuraOnce (TM) in paralyzed adult patients under conditions of controlled ventilation. Two hundred and four patients (ASA class 1-3, age 18-89, weight 46-115 kg) were enrolled in the study. Standardized anaesthesia (fentanyl, propofol and sevoflurane in air-oxygen) was administered including neuromuscular blockade. The primary outcome measure was the difference in seal airway pressures between the two devices. Secondary outcome measures included peak airway pressures, insertion data and postoperative profiles - the incidence of sore throat, swallowing difficulties, numb tongue, hearing difficulties, neck pain, nausea and vomiting. Results. First time insertions were 85.6% (i-gel) and 82% (AuraOnce) with overall success rates 96.3% (i-gel) and 94.2% (AuraOnce) (p=0.54). Average insertion times were 11.0 s (i-gel) and 11.6 s (AuraOnce) (p=0.19). Seal pressures were 30.4 cmH(2)O (i-gel) and 27.8 cmH(2)O (AuraOnce) (p=0.007). Peak pressures were 15.3 cmH(2)O (i-gel) and 15.6 cmH(2)O (AuraOnce) (p=0.57). Traumatic insertion occurred in 5.8% of igel (TM) and 2% of AuraOnce (TM) insertions. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was low, with the i-gel (TM) causing less sore throat and difficulty swallowing at 24h. Conclusion. Both devices provided effective seals for ventilation under positive pressure. I-gel (TM) may be a better alternative for the procedures with controlled ventilation because of higher seal pressures and lower incidence of sore throat postoperatively.
引用
收藏
页码:155 / 163
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparing i-gel and Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask airway in pediatric patients
    Yang, Gui-Zhen
    Xue, Fu-Shan
    Li, Hui-Xian
    Liu, Ya-Yang
    SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 38 (12) : 1262 - 1262
  • [2] The comparison of ProSeal and I-gel laryngeal mask airways in anesthetized adult patients under controlled ventilation
    Ekinci, Osman
    Abitagaoglu, Suheyla
    Turan, Guldem
    Sivrikaya, Zubeyir
    Bosna, Gulsen
    Ozgultekin, Asu
    SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2015, 36 (04) : 432 - 436
  • [3] Ambu AuraOnce versus i-gel laryngeal mask airway in infants and children undergoing surgical procedures A randomized controlled trial
    Alzahem, Abdulrahman M.
    Aqil, Mansoor
    Alzahrani, Tariq A.
    Aljazaeri, Ayman H.
    SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 38 (05) : 482 - 490
  • [4] Airway morbidity after use of the laryngeal mask airway: LMA ProSeal® vs. i-gel®
    Soliveres, J.
    Balaguer, J.
    Richart, M. T.
    Sanchez, J.
    Solaz, C.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2010, 27 (01) : 257 - 258
  • [5] Performance of the Pediatric-sized i-gel Compared with the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask in Anesthetized and Ventilated Children
    Theiler, Lorenz G.
    Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren
    Luepold, Barbara
    Stucki, Franziska
    Seiler, Stefan
    Urwyler, Natalie
    Greif, Robert
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2011, 115 (01) : 102 - 110
  • [6] Comparison of Outcome of Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA Classic) and I-Gel Devices in Patients Undergoing General Anaesthesia in Elective Surgeries
    Dar, Shahid Rasool
    Hussain, Riaz
    Nazeer, Tahir
    Tahir, Amna
    PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SCIENCES, 2015, 9 (03): : 1036 - 1038
  • [7] A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel (TM) vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children
    Lee, Ju-Hyun
    Cho, Hyun-Seok
    Shin, Won-Jung
    Yang, Hong-Seuk
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2014, 66 (02) : 127 - 130
  • [8] Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway vs the I-gel Supraglottic Airway in patients under general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation with no neuromuscular block: a randomized clinical trial
    Fernandez Diez, A.
    Perez Villafane, A.
    Bermejo Gonzalez, J. C.
    Marcos Vidal, J. M.
    REVISTA ESPANOLA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA Y REANIMACION, 2009, 56 (08): : 474 - 478
  • [9] Application of PEEP using the i-gel during volume-controlled ventilation in anesthetized, paralyzed patients
    Yong Beom Kim
    Young Jin Chang
    Wol Seon Jung
    Sang Ho Byen
    Youn Yi Jo
    Journal of Anesthesia, 2013, 27 : 827 - 831
  • [10] Application of PEEP using the i-gel during volume-controlled ventilation in anesthetized, paralyzed patients
    Kim, Yong Beom
    Chang, Young Jin
    Jung, Wol Seon
    Byen, Sang Ho
    Jo, Youn Yi
    JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA, 2013, 27 (06) : 827 - 831