Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Der Anaesthesist 4/2015

01.04.2015 | Originalien

Randomized comparison of the i-gelTM with the LMA SupremeTM in anesthetized adult patients

verfasst von: J.M. Beleña, M.D., Ph.D., M. Núñez, M.D., A. Vidal, M.D., Ph.D., C. Gasco, M.D., Ph.D., A. Alcojor, M.D., P. Lee, MD, J.L. Pérez, M.D.

Erschienen in: Die Anaesthesiologie | Ausgabe 4/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The LMA SupremeTM (LMA-S) and i-gelTM are two of the most commonly used supraglottic airway devices (SADs) with an inbuilt drain channel. These devices are particularly indicated for performing certain procedures accompanied by high peak airway pressure, such as laparoscopy. This study compared the devices regarding efficacy, safety, ease of use and incidence of adverse events, focusing on the postoperative rate of sore throat, dysphagia or dysphonia and development with time, in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures under general anesthesia.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study including 140 patients randomized into 2 groups undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy to use either i-gel or LMA-S. After the general anesthesia procedure, the speed of insertion, success rates, ease of insertion of the drain tube, leak pressure and tidal volume achieved by the devices were evaluated. The postoperative oropharyngeal discomfort (POPD) during the period of stay of the patients in the recovery room was also recorded.

Results

The mean leak pressure was comparable between the two groups (i-gel 28.18 ± 3.90 cmH2O and LMA-S 27.50 ± 4 cmH2O, p = 0.09), as well as maximum expiratory tidal volume provided (i-gel 559.60 ± 45.25 ml and LMA-S 548.95 ± 56.18 ml, p = 0.12). Insertion times were lower for the i-gel (10 ± 1.62 s) compared with the LMA-S (11.31 ± 2.85 s, p = 0.008). Insertion success rate at the first attempt was higher for the LMA-S (95 % compared with i-gel 79 %, p = 0.007). Drain tubes were easier to insert in the LMA-S group (p < 0.001). No differences were found between groups relating to intraoperative complications. Frequency of coughing and visible blood on removal of the device were low and comparable in both groups (p = 0.860 and p = 0.623, respectively). There were no differences relating to the incidence of sore throat, dysphagia or hoarseness at 10 min postoperatively between groups (p = 0.088). The i-gel group complained about a higher sore throat score at 2 h postoperatively (p = 0.009), specifically patients receiving i-gel suffered more from sore throats with 0.24 more points on the visual analog scale (VAS) than patients from the LMA-S group. The i-gel group also reported a lower POPD drop during the first 2 h (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

No differences were found between i-gel and LMA-S regarding leak pressure in the groups of anesthetized patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The LMA-S was easier to insert than the i-gel (based on its better first time success rate) and this device showed better ease of drain tube insertion, although the i-gel was quicker to insert than the LMA-S. The i-gel resulted in higher sore throat scores at 2 h postoperatively and lower POPD reduction during the 2 h period studied in the recovery room was reported.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat O’Connor CJ Jr, Stix MS, Valade DR (2005) Glottic insertion of the ProSeal LMA occurs in 6 % of cases: a review of 627 patients. Can J Anaesth 52(2):199–204CrossRefPubMed O’Connor CJ Jr, Stix MS, Valade DR (2005) Glottic insertion of the ProSeal LMA occurs in 6 % of cases: a review of 627 patients. Can J Anaesth 52(2):199–204CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC et al (2003) LMA-Classic™ and LMA-ProSeal™ are effective alternatives to endotracheal intubation for gynecologic laparoscopy. Can J Anaesth 50:71–77CrossRefPubMed Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC et al (2003) LMA-Classic™ and LMA-ProSeal™ are effective alternatives to endotracheal intubation for gynecologic laparoscopy. Can J Anaesth 50:71–77CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Natalini G, Lanza G, Rosano A et al (2003) Standard Laryngeal Mask Airway™ and LMA-ProSeal™ during laparoscopic surgery. J Clin Anesth 15:428–432CrossRefPubMed Natalini G, Lanza G, Rosano A et al (2003) Standard Laryngeal Mask Airway™ and LMA-ProSeal™ during laparoscopic surgery. J Clin Anesth 15:428–432CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee AK, Tey JB, Lim Y, Sia AT (2009) Comparison of the single-use LMA Supreme with the reusable Proseal LMA for anaesthesia in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 37:815–819PubMed Lee AK, Tey JB, Lim Y, Sia AT (2009) Comparison of the single-use LMA Supreme with the reusable Proseal LMA for anaesthesia in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 37:815–819PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T et al (2010) Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia 65:1173–1179CrossRefPubMed Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T et al (2010) Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia 65:1173–1179CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Yao T, Yang XL, Zhang F et al (2010) The feasibility of Supreme laryngeal mask airway in gynaecological laparoscopy surgery. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 90:2048–2051PubMed Yao T, Yang XL, Zhang F et al (2010) The feasibility of Supreme laryngeal mask airway in gynaecological laparoscopy surgery. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 90:2048–2051PubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Beleña JM, Nuñez M, Anta D et al (2013) Comparison of LMA Supreme™ and LMA Proseal™ with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure in patients undergoing anaesthesia during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 30:119–123CrossRefPubMed Beleña JM, Nuñez M, Anta D et al (2013) Comparison of LMA Supreme™ and LMA Proseal™ with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure in patients undergoing anaesthesia during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 30:119–123CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Sharma B, Sehgal R, Sahai C, Sood J (2010) PLMA vs. I-gel: a comparative evaluation of respiratory mechanics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 26:451–457PubMedCentralPubMed Sharma B, Sehgal R, Sahai C, Sood J (2010) PLMA vs. I-gel: a comparative evaluation of respiratory mechanics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 26:451–457PubMedCentralPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Woo JJ, Sang YC, Seong JB, Kyoung HK (2012) Comparison of the Proseal LMA and Intersurgical I-gel during gynaecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol 63:510–514CrossRef Woo JJ, Sang YC, Seong JB, Kyoung HK (2012) Comparison of the Proseal LMA and Intersurgical I-gel during gynaecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol 63:510–514CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R (1999) Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth 82:286–287CrossRefPubMed Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R (1999) Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth 82:286–287CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Russo SG, Cremer S, Galli T et al (2012) Randomized comparison of the i-gel™, the LMA Supreme™ and the Laryngeal Tube Suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessment in elective patients. BMC Anesthesiol 12:18CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Russo SG, Cremer S, Galli T et al (2012) Randomized comparison of the i-gel™, the LMA Supreme™ and the Laryngeal Tube Suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessment in elective patients. BMC Anesthesiol 12:18CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Beleña JM, Gracia JL, Ayala JL et al (2011) The Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Anesth 23:456–460CrossRefPubMed Beleña JM, Gracia JL, Ayala JL et al (2011) The Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Anesth 23:456–460CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Gatward JJ, Cook TM, Seller C et al (2008) Evaluation of the size 4 i-gel airway in one hundred non-paralysed patients. Anaesthesia 63(10):1124–1130CrossRefPubMed Gatward JJ, Cook TM, Seller C et al (2008) Evaluation of the size 4 i-gel airway in one hundred non-paralysed patients. Anaesthesia 63(10):1124–1130CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C et al (2009) Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway™. Anesthesiology 110:262–265PubMed Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C et al (2009) Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway™. Anesthesiology 110:262–265PubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Fernández A, Pérez A, Bermejo JC, Marcos JM (2009) Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway vs the I-gel Supraglottic Airway in patients under general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation with no neuromuscular block: a randomized clinical trial. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 56:474–478CrossRef Fernández A, Pérez A, Bermejo JC, Marcos JM (2009) Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway vs the I-gel Supraglottic Airway in patients under general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation with no neuromuscular block: a randomized clinical trial. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 56:474–478CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, KaiserD et al (2009) Crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask supreme and the i-gel in simulated difficult airway scenario in anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 111:55–62CrossRefPubMed Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, KaiserD et al (2009) Crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask supreme and the i-gel in simulated difficult airway scenario in anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 111:55–62CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Ragazzi R, Finessi L, Farinelli I et al (2012) LMA Supreme™ vs i-gel™: a comparison of insertion success in novices. Anaesthesia 67:384–388CrossRefPubMed Ragazzi R, Finessi L, Farinelli I et al (2012) LMA Supreme™ vs i-gel™: a comparison of insertion success in novices. Anaesthesia 67:384–388CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Randomized comparison of the i-gelTM with the LMA SupremeTM in anesthetized adult patients
verfasst von
J.M. Beleña, M.D., Ph.D.
M. Núñez, M.D.
A. Vidal, M.D., Ph.D.
C. Gasco, M.D., Ph.D.
A. Alcojor, M.D.
P. Lee, MD
J.L. Pérez, M.D.
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2015
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Die Anaesthesiologie / Ausgabe 4/2015
Print ISSN: 2731-6858
Elektronische ISSN: 2731-6866
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-015-0020-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2015

Der Anaesthesist 4/2015 Zur Ausgabe

CME Zertifizierte Fortbildung

Notfallsonographie

Einführung zum Thema

Überlebenskette im Krankenhaus

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.