Luthra A, Chauhan R, Jain A, Bhukal I, Mahajan S, Bala I. Anesth Essays Res. 2019 Oct-Dec;13(4):669-675
This prospective randomized observational study was carried out to evaluate the efficacy of the i-gel as compared to the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) in non-paralysed anaesthetised patients. 40 ASA I-II patients, between 18 and 65 years of age, undergoing elective surgery were randomly allocated to either the i-gel or the PLMA. Observed parameters included insertion time, ease of insertion, number of attempts, failed insertion, airway reaction during insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), and gastric insufflation. Additionally, fibreoptic view of the channels of the devices and ease of insertion of Ryle's tube through the gastric drain channel and complications were also assessed. Results showed that both devices had a similar performance in terms of first attempt, overall insertion success rates and insertion times. On the other hand, the Ryle's tube passage was easier through the i-gel. Full view of the vocal cords was achieved in 17 patients intubated using the i-gel and 9 using the PLMA. In addition, the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness was higher in the PLMA group. Thus, the i-gel provides superior approach in this type of patient as it is able to achieve a better positioning over the laryngeal framework and oesophagus while allowing an easier passage of the Ryle's tube through its drain channel as compared to the PLMA.
Link to abstract.
Lee YC, Yoon KS, Park SY, Choi SR, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018 Feb;71(1):37-42.
In this study the performance of the i-gel and the LMA Supreme was evaluated in infants (ASA I and II) undergoing general anaesthesia. 60 patients were randomly assigned to the i-gel and the LMAS and the size of the devices was selected in accordance to the infant’s weight. A range of parameters including oropharyngeal leak pressure (primary outcome), fiberoptic view, airway quality, airway manipulations, insertion success rate and time (secondary outcomes) were investigated to determine the efficacy and safety of the two devices. Insertion time was shorter for the i-gel group.
Link to abstract.