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
. 2020 Jul-Sep;14(3):461-466.
doi: 10.4103/aer.AER_107_20. Epub 2021 Mar 22.

Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best?

Rami Mounir Wahba  1 , Milad Zekry Ragaei  1 , Ayman Anis Metry  1 , George Mikhael Nakhla  1
Affiliations

Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best?

Rami Mounir Wahba et al. Anesth Essays Res. 2020 Jul-Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of the study were to compare the insertion facility, the effect on hemodynamic parameters, and effective ventilation using I-gel versus Air-Q supraglottic airway devices (SADs) for pediatric patients undergoing short-duration surgical procedures.

Patients and methods: One hundred and fifty children aged 3-10 years were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group I received I-gel and Group Q received Air-Q SAD. All patients were anesthetized by sevoflurane inhalation using a face mask without neuromuscular blockade. Study outcomes included SAD insertion success rate (SR), insertion time, anatomic alignment of the SAD to the larynx as judged using fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) inserted through the SAD, and tidal volume leak, and incidence of postoperative complications.

Results: Total and first attempt SRs were 97.3% and 85.3% for I-gel and 94.7% and 82.7% respectively, for Air-Q with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel insertion time (12.3 ± 3.6 s.) was significantly (P = 0.034) shorter than Air-Q (13.7 ± 4.2 s). FOB grading of laryngeal view through SAD was better with I-gel but without significant difference for patients who had view Grades 1-2. Percentage of tidal volume loss was significantly decreased at 5 min after insertion than immediately after insertion, in all patients, with a nonsignificant difference in favor of I-gel. Intraoperative hemodynamic changes and postoperative complications showed a nonsignificant difference between both the groups.

Conclusion: Both Air-Q and I-gel SAD provided advantages for pediatric anesthesia during short-duration surgical procedure with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel SAD required a shorter insertion time and provided a high SR which is satisfactory for trainees and during an emergency. I-gel SAD allowed minimization of tidal volume leak and gastric inflation and is associated with infrequent complications.

Keywords: Air-Q; I-gel; insertion success rate; insertion time; postinsertion complications; supraglottic airway devices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort flow sheet
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patients’ distribution according to times of attempts for device insertion
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean (±standard deviation) of device insertion time [significant differnces]
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of patients had successful insertion according to fiberoptic bronchoscope grading of laryngeal view through the device
Figure 5
Figure 5
Mean tidal volume loss immediately and 5 min after insertion study outcomes included
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Walas W, Aleksandrowicz D, Borszewska-Kornacka M, Gaszyński T, Helwich E, Migdał M, et al. Unanticipated difficult airway management in children – The consensus statement of the Paediatric Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Section and the Airway Management Section of the Polish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy and the Polish So. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2017;49:336–49. - PubMed
    1. Dreher M, Kluge S. Airway devices in the intensive care unit. Pneumologie. 2014;68:371–7. - PubMed
    1. Steinmann D, Ahne T, Heringhaus C, Goebel U. Comparison of airway management techniques for different access in a simulated motor vehicle entrapment scenario. Eur J Emerg Med. 2016;23:279–85. - PubMed
    1. Dembinski R, Scholtyschik D. The Laryngeal mask – Step by step. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2019;144:690–4. - PubMed
    1. Kim HJ, Park HS, Kim SY, Ro YJ, Yang HS, Koh WU. A randomized controlled trial comparing Ambu AuraGain and i-gel in young pediatric patients. J Clin Med. 2019;8:1235. - PMC - PubMed