Taxak S, Gopinath A, Saini S, Bansal T, Ahlawat MS, Bala M. Saudi J Anaesth. 2015 Oct-Dec;9(4):446-50
40 patients were allocated to either the i-gel or ProSeal group. Insertion of i-gel on first attempt was successful in 17 of 20 patients, compared to 16 for ProSeal, and was faster to insert. Authors conclude ProSeal provided the better seal but insertion was easier with i-gel.
Link to abstract
5e4599ee-3a2b-427f-a58c-77b3005e7976|1|4.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Park SY, Rim JC, Kim H, Lee JH, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015 Oct;68(5):455-61
93 patients were allocated into i-gel or LMA Supreme groups, with insertion time, attempts and fibreoptic view of glottis recorded. No significant differences were recorded.
Link to abstract
32e902d0-26a4-4a4d-ba24-a474eadeeda7|1|4.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Choi CG, Yang KH, Jung JK, Han JU, Lee CS, Cha YD, Song JH. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015 Oct;68(5):501-4
Report of i-gel used to ventilate a 59-year-old male with rotator cuff syndrome after failed tracheal intubation.
Link to abstract
2b57531e-0238-4c38-a373-7c0dd11b298f|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Goyal R. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Oct-Dec;31(4):440-9
Overview of currently available options in paediatric sizes, suitability of each, published data and general concerns regarding their use.
Link to abstract
Tags :
2015,
Goyal R,
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol,
Review,
Paediatric,
vs air-Q,
vs Ambu Aura,
vs LMA,
vs Laryngeal tube suction ,
vs Flexible LMA,
vs Cobra,
vs ProSeal,
vs LMA Supreme,
fibreoptic ,
Free
cde85dbd-1618-4f61-a671-a17e46eaae85|1|4.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Mishra SK, Sivaraman B, Balachander H, Naggapa M, Parida S, Bhat RR, Yuvaraj K. Anesth Essays Res. 2015 Sep-Dec;9(3):353-8
60 patients were enrolled to either i-gel or ProSeal groups, with the primary objective to compare sealing pressure. Authors conclude ProSeal gave a better seal.
Link to abstract
5a95bc33-8c91-4769-a46a-60aee8043d94|2|3.5|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c