[Evaluation of the new supraglottic airway devices Ambu AuraOnce and Intersurgical i-gel. Positioning, sealing, patient comfort and airway morbidity]
- PMID: 19669103
- DOI: 10.1007/s00101-009-1600-6
[Evaluation of the new supraglottic airway devices Ambu AuraOnce and Intersurgical i-gel. Positioning, sealing, patient comfort and airway morbidity]
Abstract
Background: Supraglottic airway devices (SGAD) have become more important in airway management over the past years and an objective comparison of the available devices is in order.
Methods: In a prospective study the four SGADs LMA-Classic(cLMA), LMA-ProSeal (PLMA), Ambu AuraOnce and Intersurgical i-gel were compared in groups of 40 patients in ambulatory surgery, with respect to the feasibility of positioning, leak tightness, patient comfort and airway morbidity. The seal test of the airway devices was carried out with a specially constructed pneumotachograph.
Results: Adequate placement on the first attempt was achieved in 92.5% with the cLMA, 85% with the PLMA, 92.5% with the AuraOnce and 82.5% with the i-gel (p>0.05). There were no clinically relevant differences in mean insertion times: cLMA 13.8 s (+/-3.4 s), PLMA 13 s (+/-3.2 s), AuraOnce 11.2 s (+/-2.7 s; p<0.05) and 13.9 s (+/-3.6 s) with the i-gel. A tight seal at a constant oropharyngeal pressure of 15 cmH(2)O was achieved in 85% of the cases (34 cases) with the cLMA, 90% (36 cases) with the PLMA, 97.5% (39 cases) with the AuraOnce and 72.5% (29 cases) with the i-gel (p<0.05). A tight seal at a constant oropharyngeal pressure of 20 cmH(2)O was seen in 62.5% with the cLMA, 60% with the PLMA, 67.5% with the AuraOnce and in 50% with the i-gel of the cases (p>0.05). Airway morbidity was not observed in any group. Significantly more patients complained of a sore throat after using the cLMA (p<0.05).
Conclusion: The tested SGADs were comparable with regard to ease of insertion, insertion times and airway morbidity. Considering leak tightness and patient comfort the PLMA and the AuraOnce fared better with regard to tightness of seal and patient comfort.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of size 2 i-gel supraglottic airway with LMA-ProSeal™ and LMA-Classic™ in spontaneously breathing children undergoing elective surgery.Paediatr Anaesth. 2012 Apr;22(4):355-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03757.x. Epub 2011 Dec 8. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012. PMID: 22151106 Clinical Trial.
-
The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients.Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Jul;27(7):598-601. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283340a81. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010. PMID: 19915475 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison between LMA-Classic and AMBU AuraOnce laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing elective general anaesthesia with positive pressure ventilation.Med J Malaysia. 2011 Oct;66(4):304-7. Med J Malaysia. 2011. PMID: 22299547 Clinical Trial.
-
The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature.Can J Anaesth. 2005 Aug-Sep;52(7):739-60. doi: 10.1007/BF03016565. Can J Anaesth. 2005. PMID: 16103390 Review.
-
Laryngeal mask airway ProSeal provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than i-gel in adult patients under general anesthesia: a meta-analysis.J Clin Anesth. 2016 Sep;33:298-305. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.04.020. Epub 2016 May 18. J Clin Anesth. 2016. PMID: 27555181 Review.
Cited by
-
Comparative study of the Ambu® AuraOnce™ laryngeal mask and endotracheal intubation in anesthesia airway management during neurosurgery.J Int Med Res. 2020 Feb;48(2):300060520902606. doi: 10.1177/0300060520902606. J Int Med Res. 2020. PMID: 32036718 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal™ and i-gel® in adults: Meta-analysis and systematic review.J Int Med Res. 2016 Jun;44(3):405-18. doi: 10.1177/0300060515607386. Epub 2016 Mar 23. J Int Med Res. 2016. PMID: 27009026 Free PMC article.
-
I-Gel is a suitable alternative to endotracheal tubes in the laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum and trendelenburg position.BMC Anesthesiol. 2017 Jan 6;17(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12871-016-0291-1. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017. PMID: 28125979 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous