A Randomised Comparison of the Performance of ProSealÃÂ® Laryngeal Mask Airway with the i-gelÃÂ® for Spontaneous and Controlled Ventilation during Routine Anaesthesia in European Population
Bosley NJ*, Burrows LA, Bhayani S, Nworah E and Cook TM
Department of Anaesthesia, Royal United Hospital, Coombe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK
- *Corresponding Author:
- Bosley NJ
Department of Anaesthesia
Royal United Hospital, Coombe Park
Bath BA1 3NG, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: July 21, 2014; Accepted date: November 04, 2014; Published date: November 14, 2014
Citation: Bosley NJ, Burrows LA, Bhayani S, Nworah E, Cook TM (2014) A Randomised Comparison of the Performance of ProSeal® Laryngeal Mask Airway with the i-gel® Laryngeal Mask Airway for Spontaneous and Controlled Ventilation during Routine Anaesthesia in European Population. J Anesth Clin Res 5:459. doi: 10.4172/2155-6148.1000459
Copyright: © 2014 Bosley NJ, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Study objective: The aim of the study was to determine if there is a clinically significant difference in the performance (Ease of insertion, manipulations, ventilator performance, leak pressures and complications) of two second generation supraglottic airways (LMA ProSeal® (Intavent Direct, UK) and the i-gel® (Intersurgical, Wokingham, UK) in non-paralysed European patient population group, during routine anaesthesia with spontaneous and controlled ventilation. Methods: Ninety-eight American Society Anaesthesiologists physical status class I-III patients, undergoing elective surgical procedures, judged suitable for general anaesthesia with a classic LMA were recruited for the trial. Patients were randomised to have either the LMA ProSeal® or the i-gel® group as the supraglottic airway for spontaneous and controlled ventilation during routine anaesthesia prior to induction. Measurements: The primary outcome was first attempt insertion success and time to insertion of either the LMA ProSeal® or i-gel®. Secondary outcomes were, ease of insertion, manipulations to establish patent airway, fibre optic view of larynx, complications during anaesthesia, emergence, recovery, and anaesthetist assessment of device performance. Results: First time insertion success rate was 86% in the LMA ProSeal® group and 78% in the i-gel® group (P=0.61). The number of insertion attempts did not differ between the two groups (P=0.31). The ease of insertion (P=0.64), time to establish a patent airway (P=0.06), number of manipulations (P=0.97) and anatomical positioning of the device (P=0.36) and ventilator performance were similar between the two groups. The number of patients reporting post-operative sequelae and the total number of complications were similar between devices in recovery (P=0.72) and at 24 hours (P=1.0). The leak pressure was significantly higher in the group LMA ProSeal® (28 cmH2O) compared to i-gel® (22 cmH2O) (P=0.002). Conclusion: The LMA ProSeal® and i-gel® have comparable performance characteristics during routine general anaesthesia in non-paralysed patients. The LMA ProSeal® has a higher airway seal that is statistically significantly different and may be clinically important.