PubMed:23327031 JSONTXT

{"project":"Allie","denotations":[{"id":"SS1_23327031_2_0","span":{"begin":223,"end":244},"obj":"expanded"},{"id":"SS2_23327031_2_0","span":{"begin":246,"end":249},"obj":"abbr"}],"relations":[{"id":"AE1_23327031_2_0","pred":"abbreviatedTo","subj":"SS1_23327031_2_0","obj":"SS2_23327031_2_0"}],"text":"Comparative study between I-gel, a new supraglottic airway device, and classical laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized spontaneously ventilated patients.\nOBJECTIVE: To compare two different supraglottic airway devices, the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and the I-gel, regarding easiness of insertion of the device, leak pressure, gastric insufflation, end tidal CO2, oxygen saturation, hemodynamic and postoperative complications in anesthetized, spontaneously ventilated adult patients performing different non-emergency surgical procedures.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out as a prospective, randomized, clinical trial among 80 patients who underwent different surgical procedures under general anesthesia with spontaneous ventilation in supine position. They were equally randomized into two groups: I-gel and LMA groups. Both the devices were compared with regard to heart rate, arterial BP, SPO2, end-tidal CO2, number and duration of insertion attempts, incidence of gastric insufflation, leak pressure and airway assessment after removal of the device.\nRESULTS: No statistically significant difference was reported between both the groups, regarding heart rate, arterial BP, SPO2 and end-tidal CO2. The mean duration of insertion attempts was 15.6 +/- 4.9 seconds in the I-gel group, while it was 26.2 +/- 17.7 seconds in the LMA group. The difference between both the groups regarding duration of insertion attempts was statistically significant (P 0.0023*), while the number of insertion attempts was statistically insignificant between both the study groups (P \u003e 0.05). Leak pressure was(25.6 +/- 4.9 versus 21.2 +/- 7.7 0.016* cmH2O) significantly higher among studied patients of the I-gel group and incidence of gastric insufflation was significantly more with LMA 9 (22.5%) versus 2 (5%) 0.016* in I-gel group.\nCONCLUSION: Both LMA and I-gel do not cause any significant alteration in the hemodynamic status of the patients, end tidal CO2, and SPO2. The postoperative complications were not significantly different except nusea and vomiting was statistically significant higher in LMAgroup(P 0.032). among both LMA and I-gel patients. Insertion of I-gel was significantly easier and more rapid than insertion of LMA. Leak pressure was significantly higher with I-gel than LMA and thus incidence of gastric insufflation was significantly lower with I-gel."}