PloS one · 2015
Comparison of the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal during general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Park Sun Kyung, Choi Geun Joo, Choi Yun Suk, Ahn Eun Jin, Kang Hyun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Conflicting results have been reported for the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal (LMA-P) during general anesthesia. The objective of the current investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of the i-gel vs. the LMA-P during general anesthesia.
METHODS: Two authors performed searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar to identify randomized clinical trials that compared the LMA-P with the i-gel during general anesthesia. A meta -analysis was performed using both random and fixed-effect models. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's linear regression test.
RESULTS: Twelve randomized clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. There were no significant differences in insertion success rate at the first attempt (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97, 1.06), ease of insertion (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93, 1.39), oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) (MD -1.98, 95% CI -5.41, 1.45), quality of fiberoptic view (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91, 1.10) and success rate of gastric tube insertion (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98, 1.18) between the i-gel and the LMA-P, respectively. The i-gel had a shorter insertion time than the LMA-P (MD -3.99, 95% CI -7.13, -0.84) and a lower incidence of blood staining on the device (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14, 0.49), sore throat (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15, 0.50) and dysphagia (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10, 0.74).
CONCLUSIONS: Both devices were comparable in ease of insertion to insert and both had sufficient OLP to provide a reliable airway. Only a few minor complications were reported. The i-gel was found to have fewer complications (blood staining, sore throat, dysphagia) than the LMA-P and offers certain advantages over the LMA-P in adults under general anesthesia.
METHODS: Two authors performed searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar to identify randomized clinical trials that compared the LMA-P with the i-gel during general anesthesia. A meta -analysis was performed using both random and fixed-effect models. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's linear regression test.
RESULTS: Twelve randomized clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. There were no significant differences in insertion success rate at the first attempt (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97, 1.06), ease of insertion (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93, 1.39), oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) (MD -1.98, 95% CI -5.41, 1.45), quality of fiberoptic view (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91, 1.10) and success rate of gastric tube insertion (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98, 1.18) between the i-gel and the LMA-P, respectively. The i-gel had a shorter insertion time than the LMA-P (MD -3.99, 95% CI -7.13, -0.84) and a lower incidence of blood staining on the device (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14, 0.49), sore throat (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15, 0.50) and dysphagia (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10, 0.74).
CONCLUSIONS: Both devices were comparable in ease of insertion to insert and both had sufficient OLP to provide a reliable airway. Only a few minor complications were reported. The i-gel was found to have fewer complications (blood staining, sore throat, dysphagia) than the LMA-P and offers certain advantages over the LMA-P in adults under general anesthesia.