Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Anestesiologica 2020 July;86(7) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2020 July;86(7):727-35

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Freefree

Minerva Anestesiologica 2020 July;86(7):727-35

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14237-8

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Comparison of the i-gel™ with the AuraGain™ 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, South Korea; 2 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea; 3 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea



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 anesthesia 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 masks; Anesthesia, general; Airway management

inizio pagina