Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jun;53(3):302-5.

Comparison of Clinical Performance of I-Gel with LMA-Proseal in Elective Surgeries

Ishwar Singh  1 , Monika Gupta, Mansi Tandon
Affiliations

Comparison of Clinical Performance of I-Gel with LMA-Proseal in Elective Surgeries

Ishwar Singh et al. Indian J Anaesth. 2009 Jun.

Abstract

Sixty ASA grade I & II adult patients of either sex were randomly assigned into two groups. Group I (n=30) for I-gel and Group P (n=30) for LMA - ProSeal. We assessed the airway sealing pressure, ease of insertion, success rate of insertion, ease of gastric tube placement, airway trauma by post operative blood staining of the device, tongue, lip and dental trauma, hoarseness, regurgitation / aspiration and cost effectiveness. Although the airway sealing pressure was higher with Group P (29.6 cm H(2)O) than with Group I (25.27 cm H(2)0) (p < 0.05), but the airway sealing pressure of Group I was very well within the normal limit to prevent aspiration. The ease of insertion was more with Group I (29/30) than with Group P (25/30) (p < 0.05). The success rate of first attempt of insertion and ease of gastric tube placement was more with Group I (p > 0.05). Blood staining of the device & tongue, lip and dental trauma was more with Group P (p >0.05). There was no evidence of bronchospasm, laryngospasm, regurgitation, aspiration or hoarseness in either group. To conclude I-gel is a novel supraglottic device with an acceptable airway sealing pressure (25.27 cm H(2)O). It is easier to insert, requires less attempts of insertion, has easier gastric tube placement and is less traumatic as compared to LMA-ProSeal.

Keywords: Airway sealing pressure; I-gel; LMA – ProSeal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Showing I-gel, LMA-ProSeal and Pressure gauge (from left to right)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Levitan RM, Kinkle WC. Initial anatomic investigations of the I-gel airway: a novel supraglottic airway without inflatable cuff. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:1022–1026. - PubMed
    1. Brain Al, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA ‘ProSeal’–a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:650–4. - PubMed
    1. Shimbori H, Ono K, Miwa T, Morimura N, Noguchi M, Hiroki K. Comparison of the LMA – ProSeal and LMA classic in children. Br J Anaesth. 2004;93:528–31. - PubMed
    1. Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:286–7. - PubMed
    1. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Keller C. A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001;11:319–21. - PubMed