Fernández Díez A, Prez Villafane A, Bermejo González JC, Marcos Vidal JM. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2009; 56: 474-478
In this study, 85 patients were randomised into two groups for ventilation via LMA Supreme® or i-gel® supraglottic airways. Ease of insertion, seal pressure, ventilatory parameters and insertion of a gastric tube were all recorded. Both devices were easy to insert, with the SupremeTM and i-gel® being inserted on the first attempt in 95.2 and 86% of cases respectively. Performance was generally comparable.
Abstract text
aa89b2d1-8a81-4b91-adee-6d87587582b3|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Campbell J, Michalek P, Deighan M. Resuscitation 2009; 80(8): 963
This case report details the case of a 54-year-old man with acute respiratory failure, who had a grade four view at laryngoscopy. He was difficult to bag-mask ventilate and a laryngeal mask was inserted as an airway rescue technique. As ventilation was not possible with this device, it was removed and a size four i-gel® inserted. This allowed good ventilation. A fibrescope was passed down the airway channel and a 7.0mm endotracheal tube passed over the fibrescope and through the i-gel®. The i-gel® was then removed, leaving the airway secure.
Link to abstract.
bd8f355b-f41f-485d-a861-0b08a47ef4db|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Thomas M, Benger J. Resuscitation 2009; 80(12): 1437
This correspondence article describes 12 attempts to ventilate patients in cardiac arrest using the i-gel®. The device could usually be inserted on the first attempt; however, on seven out of 12 occasions ventilation was then found to be inadequate. The i-gel®s were correctly positioned, but there were large leaks. The authors state that the reason for this is unclear, but that the device may be harder to position correctly when patients are not in the most appropriate position for insertion. An alternative explanation is that higher pressure is needed to ventilate the lungs after cardiac arrest, in which case other supraglottic airways should have the same problem.
Link to abstract.
d0f143f7-651c-4aca-ba22-df805b613092|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Kaiser D, Urwyler MD, Luyet C, Vogt A, Greig R, Unibe MME. Anesthesiology 2009; 111(1): 55-62
This study looked at a simulated difficult airway scenario by using a neck collar to limit both mouth opening and neck movement. Both devices were placed in random order in each of 60 patients. The primary outcome was overall success rate. Other measurements included time to successful ventilation, seal pressure, fibreoptic view and adverse events.The authors concluded the two devices tested had a ‘similar insertion success and clinical performance in the simulated difficult airway situation’. The i-gel® enabled better fibreoptic laryngeal view and less epiglottic downfolding.
Link to abstract.
ade79efb-8ce3-463b-b696-f53892ef0831|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Cook TM, Gatward JJ. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(11): 1262-1263
This letter is a response to Kushakovsky and Ahmad (2009 - see above) regarding the performance of the LMA Supreme®, LMA ProSealTM and i-gel® devices. The letter states that the i-gel® and ProSeal® have both been shown to vent gastric contents when they have good placement and oesophageal seal, but that this has not been studied in the LMA Supreme®. Only small studies comparing the LMA Supreme®, ProSeal and i-gel® are available, although these generally show comparable performance. The authors recommend further research with larger study populations.
Link to abstract.
f178c4d6-633c-4a89-94c8-1c11f0cf1a56|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c