Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on October 20, 2009
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009 103(6):882-885; doi:10.1093/bja/aep292
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
103/6/882    most recent
aep292v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow E-letters: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Uppal, V.
Right arrow Articles by Kinsella, J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Uppal, V.
Right arrow Articles by Kinsella, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournal.org

Randomized crossover comparison between the i-gel and the LMA-Unique in anaesthetized, paralysed adults

V. Uppal1,*, S. Gangaiah1, G. Fletcher2 and J. Kinsella1

1 Section of Anaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK
2 Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, UK

* Corresponding author. E-mail: drvishal76{at}rediffmail.com

Background: The i-gel differs from other supraglottic airway devices, in that it has a softer, non-inflatable cuff. This study was designed to compare the performance of the i-gel and the LMA-Unique (LMA-U) when used during anaesthesia in paralysed patients.

Methods: Both devices were studied in 39 anaesthetized, paralysed patients in a randomized crossover trial. The primary outcome was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcomes included time to insertion, the number of insertion and reposition attempts, leak volumes, and leak fractions.

Results: There was no significant difference between the airway leak pressures of the two devices [median (IQR) leak pressures 25 (22–30) vs 22 (20–28) cm H2O for the i-gel and LMA-U, respectively; P=0.083, 95% CI of the mean difference –0.32 to 4.88 cm H2O]. The median (IQR) insertion time for the i-gel was significantly less than for the LMA-U [12.2 (9.7–14.3) vs 15.2 (13.2–17.3) s; P=0.007]. All the LMA-U devices and 38 of 39 i-gel airways were inserted at the first attempt. The number of manipulations required after insertion to achieve a clear airway was the same in both the groups (four in each). There were no statistically significant differences in leak volumes or leak fractions during controlled ventilation.

Conclusions: We found no difference in leak pressures and success rate of first-time insertion between the i-gel and the LMA-U. Time to successful insertion was significantly shorter for the i-gel. We conclude that the i-gel provides a reasonable alternative to the LMA-U for controlled ventilation during anaesthesia.

Keywords: equipment, airway; ventilation, mechanical


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


E-letters:

Read all E-letters

uLMA and iGel at comparison
Davide Cattano, et al.
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 15 Dec 2009 [Full text]

Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.