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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Mar-Apr;72(2):247-252.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.02.042. Epub 2021 Apr 3.

Comparison of Proseal LMA with i-Gel in children under controlled ventilation: a prospective randomised clinical study

Praveen Shiveshi  1 , Tejesh Channasandra Anandaswamy  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of Proseal LMA with i-Gel in children under controlled ventilation: a prospective randomised clinical study

Praveen Shiveshi et al. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2022 Mar-Apr.

Abstract

Background: Supraglottic airway device is presently the most common modality of airway management in children for short surgical procedures. The i-gel is one such novel supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of i-gel compared to LMA Proseal regarding oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion time, ease of insertion, and fibreoptic view of larynx.

Methods: After obtaining ethical clearance and parental consent, 70 children aged 2-10 years, weighing 10-30 kg were randomised to receive LMA Proseal or i-gel for airway management. Data with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion time, ease of insertion, number of attempts, and fibreoptic score were collected. The primary outcome was the oropharyngeal leak pressure with the two supraglottic airway devices measured by manometric stability.

Results: Demographic data were comparable between the two groups. The oropharyngeal leak pressure (LMA Proseal vs. i-gel, 20.51 ± 4.71 cmH2O vs. 19.57 ± 5.71 cmH2O), ease of insertion, number of attempts, and fibreoptic view score was similar between the two groups. The insertion time was faster with i-gel (22.63 ± 5.79 s) compared to LMA Proseal (43.26 ± 7.85 s).

Conclusion: I-gel was similar to LMA Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure in children under controlled ventilation.

Keywords: Airway management; Anesthesia; General; Laryngeal masks; Pediatrics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram.
Fig. 2
Figure 2
Mean oropharyngeal leak pressure between the two groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ramesh S., Jayanthi R., Archana S.R. Paediatric airway management: What is new? Indian J Anaesth. 2012;56:448–453. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hendinezhad M.A., Babaei A., Gholipour Baradari A., et al. Comparing supraglottic airway devices for airway management during surgery in children: a review of literature. J Pediatric Rev. 2019;7:89–98.
    1. Hoşten T., Gürkan Y., Kuş A., et al. Comparison of Pro Seal LMA with S upreme LMA in paediatric patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57:996–1001. - PubMed
    1. Saran S., Mishra S.K., Badhe A.S., et al. Comparison of i-gel supraglottic airway and LMA-ProSeal™ in pediatric patients under controlled ventilation. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2014;30:195–198. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beringer R., Kelly F., Cook T., et al. A cohort evaluation of the paediatric i-gel™ airway during anaesthesia in 120 children. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:1121–1126. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources