Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Anestesiologica 2020 Apr 06

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

 

Minerva Anestesiologica 2020 Apr 06

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14237-8

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Comparison of the i-gelTM with the AuraGainTM laryngeal mask airways in patients with a simulated cervical immobilization: a randomized controlled trial

Min HUR 1, 2, Seungeun CHOI 2, 3, Hyung S. ROW 2, 3, Tae K. KIM 2, 3

1 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea; 2 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 3 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea


PDF


BACKGROUND: The use of second generation supraglottic airway devices is recommended for airway rescue in failed tracheal intubation. This study was performed to compare the clinical performance of the i-gel with that of the AuraGain in patients with simulated cervical immobilization.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial in 104 patients undergoing general anaesthesia from June to September 2018 at the Seoul National University Hospital. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either the i-gel or the AuraGain device. A difficult airway was simulated using a cervical collar limiting the mouth opening and neck movement. The primary outcome was the initial oropharyngeal leak pressure.
RESULTS: The rate of successful insertion at the first attempt was 92.3% for the i-gel and 86% for the AuraGain. There were no significant differences in the initial and 5-min oropharyngeal
leak pressures between the i-gel and the AuraGain (21±4 vs. 22±5 cmH2O, P=0.229; and 22±5 vs. 23±5 cmH2O, P=0.308, respectively). The time to successful device insertion was shorter (20 [16-23] vs. 25 [20-41] s, P<0.001) and device insertion was easier (P<0.001) in the i-gel group than in the AuraGain group. The blood staining of the device was more frequently observed in the AuraGain (3 [5.8%] vs. 12 [23.5%] patients, P=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: The i-gel and the AuraGain showed comparable oropharyngeal leak pressures and success rates in the first attempt in patients with simulated cervical immobilization. However, the i-gel was easier to insert and required less time for insertion than the AuraGain.


KEY WORDS: Laryngeal mask airway; General anesthesia; Airway management

top of page