Henlin T, Sotak M, Kovaricek P, Tyll T, Balcarek L, Michalek P. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:201898
Prospective, randomised, single-blinded study comparing five supraglottic airway devices (ProSeal LMA, Supreme LMA, SLIPA, Laryngeal Tube Suction-D and i-gel) in low light conditions on 505 patients after induction of general anaesthesia. Insertion time was shortest in Supreme LMA and i-gel groups.
Link to abstract
Tags :
2015,
Henlin T ,
Biomed Res Int,
Anaesthesia,
Difficult Airways,
Comparison trial,
Extreme environment,
Low light,
RCT,
vs ProSeal,
vs LMA,
vs LMA Supreme,
vs SLIPA,
vs Laryngeal Tube Suction-D
02c676ab-aef9-416f-8f2d-26ba93b1748e|1|3.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Kang F, Li J, Chai X, Yu J, Zhang H, Tang C. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2015 Jan;27(1):37-41
Patients were randomised between the two groups, with device inserted in supine position. Insertion time and attempts, airway peak pressure and complications were among results measured. i-gel provided a higher airway seal pressure in the prone position and both devices recorded low complication rates.
Link to abstract
9419664e-b495-4f32-b27d-52f725d2bf8d|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Smith P, Bailey CR. Anaesthesia. 2015 Jan;70(1):84-92
Review of 62 published articles, including 14 randomised controlled trials, comparing i-gel with other supraglottic airway devices in children. Leak pressure was found to be the most common primary outcome. Authors conclude i-gel is 'at least equivalent' to other devices, and may give higher leak pressures and improved fibreoptic view of the glottis.
Link to abstract
Tags :
2015,
Smith P,
Anaesthesia,
Paediatric,
Comparison trial,
Review,
vs LMA,
vs LMA Supreme,
vs ProSeal,
vs AuraOnce,
Free
30e8cbbf-20a7-485b-95ed-155f3a45b1b3|1|1.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Kim H, Lee JY, Lee SY, Park SY, Lee SC, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Nov;67(5):317-22
100 patients were randomly assigned to either device group, with insertion success rate, leak pressure and postoperative complications among results measured. i-gel demonstrated higher leak pressure, but a longer insertion time.
Link to abstract
7d3e0d69-1c93-4813-a0c6-f1a00eea278e|1|4.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014 Oct;24(10):1072-9
A total of nine studies were included using search keywords, with results finding that i-gel gave significantly higher leak pressure and ProSeal. Authors conclude it is an effective alternative to ProSeal and cLMA.
Link to abstract
b4b8b390-018f-4196-82e9-686b5cf2a2c2|1|1.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c