A randomised trial comparing the i-gel (TM) with the LMA Classic (TM) in children

Anaesthesia. 2012 Jun;67(6):606-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07072.x. Epub 2012 Feb 21.

Abstract

We performed a prospective, randomised trial comparing the i-gel(TM) with the LMA Classic(TM) in children undergoing general anaesthesia. Ninety-nine healthy patients were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or the LMA Classic. The outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease of insertion, time taken for insertion, fibreoptic examination and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was shorter with the i-gel (17.0 (13.8-20.0 [10.0-20.0]) s) compared with the LMA Classic (21.0 (17.5-25.0 [15.0-70.0]) s, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in oropharyngeal leak pressure between the two devices. A good fibreoptic view of the glottis was obtained in 74% of the i-gel group and in 43% of the LMA Classic group (p < 0.001). There were no significant complications. In conclusion, the i-gel provided a similar leak pressure, but a shorter insertion time and improved glottic view compared with the LMA Classic in children.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Air Pressure
  • Airway Management / adverse effects
  • Airway Management / instrumentation*
  • Anesthesia, General / methods*
  • Anesthetics, Inhalation
  • Child
  • Child, Preschool
  • Disposable Equipment
  • Female
  • Fiber Optic Technology
  • Glottis / anatomy & histology
  • Humans
  • Infant
  • Intermittent Positive-Pressure Breathing
  • Intubation, Intratracheal / instrumentation
  • Laryngeal Masks* / adverse effects
  • Laryngoscopy
  • Male
  • Methyl Ethers
  • Monitoring, Intraoperative
  • Prospective Studies
  • Sevoflurane
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Anesthetics, Inhalation
  • Methyl Ethers
  • Sevoflurane