Premium
A randomised trial comparing the i‐gel TM with the LMA Classic TM in children
Author(s) -
Lee J.R.,
Kim M.S.,
Kim J.T.,
Byon H.J.,
Park Y.H.,
Kim H.S.,
Kim C.S.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
anaesthesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.839
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1365-2044
pISSN - 0003-2409
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07072.x
Subject(s) - medicine , glottis , leak , anesthesia , insertion time , laryngeal mask airway , surgery , laryngeal masks , airway , larynx , environmental engineering , engineering
Summary We performed a prospective, randomised trial comparing the i‐gel TM with the LMA Classic TM in children undergoing general anaesthesia. Ninety‐nine healthy patients were randomly assigned to either the i‐gel or the LMA Classic. The outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease of insertion, time taken for insertion, fibreoptic examination and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was shorter with the i‐gel (17.0 (13.8−20.0 [10.0−20.0]) s) compared with the LMA Classic (21.0 (17.5−25.0 [15.0−70.0]) s, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in oropharyngeal leak pressure between the two devices. A good fibreoptic view of the glottis was obtained in 74% of the i‐gel group and in 43% of the LMA Classic group (p < 0.001). There were no significant complications. In conclusion, the i‐gel provided a similar leak pressure, but a shorter insertion time and improved glottic view compared with the LMA Classic in children.