We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme and the i-gel in paralysed elderly patients: A randomised controlled trial.
European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2018 August
BACKGROUND: The laryngeal mask airway supreme (LMA-S) and i-gel are both popular second-generation supraglottic airway devices that have been widely studied in surgical patients, but their differences in clinical performance in the elderly are not clear.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy and safety of the LMA-S and i-gel in anaesthetised and paralysed elderly patients.
DESIGN: A randomised study.
SETTING: Single-centre trial, study period January 2014 from to October 2016.
PATIENTS: One hundred and six elderly patients who underwent urological or orthopaedic surgery with an expected duration less than 2 h.
INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated to either the LMA-S (n = 53) or i-gel (n = 53) group. All insertions were performed in a standardised manner according to the manufacturers' instructions.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary endpoint was the rate of successful insertion at the first attempt. The adequacy of positive pressure ventilation and airway sealing, fibreoptic laryngoscopy grades and stability of airway maintenance during anaesthesia were also assessed.
RESULTS: Although the rate of successful insertion at the first attempt was similar between the two groups (94.3 vs. 82.7%, P = 0.072), more patients required device manipulation during insertion with the LMA-S than the i-gel (42.3 vs. 18.9%, P = 0.011). Good fibreoptic laryngoscopy grades were significantly more common with the i-gel than the LMA-S (79.3 vs. 55.8%, P = 0.042), and peak inspiratory pressures were lower in the i-gel group both immediately after insertion and at the end of surgery. Leak pressures were significantly higher in the i-gel group than the LMA-S group, both immediately after insertion and at the end of surgery (25.8 vs. 23.0, P = 0.036; and 28.1 vs. 23.7, P < 0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Both the LMA-S and i-gel were used successfully and safely in elderly patients. However, the i-gel demonstrated better airway sealing than the LMA-S at insertion and during maintenance of anaesthesia.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02026791 at clinicaltrial.gov.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy and safety of the LMA-S and i-gel in anaesthetised and paralysed elderly patients.
DESIGN: A randomised study.
SETTING: Single-centre trial, study period January 2014 from to October 2016.
PATIENTS: One hundred and six elderly patients who underwent urological or orthopaedic surgery with an expected duration less than 2 h.
INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated to either the LMA-S (n = 53) or i-gel (n = 53) group. All insertions were performed in a standardised manner according to the manufacturers' instructions.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary endpoint was the rate of successful insertion at the first attempt. The adequacy of positive pressure ventilation and airway sealing, fibreoptic laryngoscopy grades and stability of airway maintenance during anaesthesia were also assessed.
RESULTS: Although the rate of successful insertion at the first attempt was similar between the two groups (94.3 vs. 82.7%, P = 0.072), more patients required device manipulation during insertion with the LMA-S than the i-gel (42.3 vs. 18.9%, P = 0.011). Good fibreoptic laryngoscopy grades were significantly more common with the i-gel than the LMA-S (79.3 vs. 55.8%, P = 0.042), and peak inspiratory pressures were lower in the i-gel group both immediately after insertion and at the end of surgery. Leak pressures were significantly higher in the i-gel group than the LMA-S group, both immediately after insertion and at the end of surgery (25.8 vs. 23.0, P = 0.036; and 28.1 vs. 23.7, P < 0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Both the LMA-S and i-gel were used successfully and safely in elderly patients. However, the i-gel demonstrated better airway sealing than the LMA-S at insertion and during maintenance of anaesthesia.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02026791 at clinicaltrial.gov.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app