Kushakovsky V, Ahmad I. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(11): 1262
This letter is a response to a small LMA Supreme® study. The authors say that they have been using the device in patients having nasopharyngeal surgery as it protects the airway from any bleeding and has a gastric channel to remove any blood in the stomach. However, they have reviewed recent research and believe that their current practice may change. In previous studies, the i-gel® has performed as well as the LMA Supreme® even when all i-gel® patients have been given a size 4 device and the LMA Supreme® has been sized correctly. Gastric tube placement in the two devices and the LMA Proseal® is also comparable. The authors are considering the use of the i-gel® or ProSealTM instead of the SupremeTM.
Link to abstract.
6538de14-34f0-4d9a-a0de-2ace4df502ee|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Bobrow B J, Ewy G A, Clark L, Chikani V, Berg R A, Sanders A B, Vadeboncoeur T F, Hilwig R W, Kern K B. Ann Emerg Med 2009; 54(5): 656-62
Retrospective analysis of statewide out-of-hospital cardiac arrests on over 1000 patients receiving either passive ventilation or bag-valve-mask ventilation treatment by paramedics. Adjusted neurologically intact survival between ventilation techniques was the main results category compared. Passive ventilation proved more successful under the terms used.
Abstract text
91e20a2e-02b9-4e9d-9123-0cf890cd4848|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
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
da9b9ba5-f9ab-4d9a-89e9-7fb3fd3ca69f|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Francksen H, Renner J, Hanss R, Scholz J, Doerges V, Bein B. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(10): 1118-1124
In this study, 80 patients were randomly allocated to either i-gel® or LMA-Unique® insertion before minor surgery. Ventilation, insertion time, airway pressure, leak pressure and postoperative sore throat were all measured. Results were similar for all parameters other than airway leak pressure, which was significantly higher in the i-gel® (mean pressure 29cm H2O compared to 18cm H2O). Both devices are acceptable for use in securing an airway, however the increased leak pressure is an advantage for the i-gel®.
Link to abstract.
778ed2be-0731-421f-b2ac-10de00ed8e46|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Ghai A, Saini S, Hooda S. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(10): 1151
This letter is a response to Baxter’s 2008 report of lightened anaesthesia due to a leak from the gastric channel of the i-gel®. The authors found that they experienced similar problems with the LMA Supreme®. No glottic structures were visualised on fibreoscopy through the airway channel, and through the gastric channel, it revealed the tip in front of the glottis rather than the oesophagus.
Link to abstract.
2dca0a86-dc9f-4554-8361-a5b0cad8dfa8|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c