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



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo


ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Free accessfree

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

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14237-8


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