Paediatric anaesthesia · 2015
A randomized comparison of the i-gel with the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Kim Min-Soo, Lee Jae Hoon, Han Sang Won, Im Young Jae, Kang Hyo Jong, Lee Jeong-Rim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Supraglottic airway devices with noninflatable cuff have advantages in omitting the cuff pressure monitoring and reducing potential pharyngolaryngeal complications. Typical devices without cuff inflation available in children are the i-gel and the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP). To date, there is no comparative study between these devices in pediatric patients.
AIM: The purpose of this randomized study was to compare the i-gel(™) and the self-pressurized air-Q(™) intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) in children undergoing general anesthesia.
METHODS: Eighty children, 1-108 months of age, 7-30 kg of weight, and scheduled for elective surgery in which supraglottic airway devices would be suitable for airway management, were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or the air-Q SP. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic view were assessed three times as follows: after insertion and fixation of the device, 10 min after initial assessment, and after completion of surgery. We also assessed insertion parameters and complications.
RESULTS: Insertion of the i-gel was regarded as significantly easier compared to the air-Q SP (P = 0.04). Compared to the air-Q SP group, the i-gel group had significantly higher oropharyngeal leak pressures at all measurement points and significantly lower frequencies of gastric insufflation at 10 min after initial assessment and completion of surgery. The air-Q SP group had better fiberoptic views than the i-gel group at all measurement points.
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that the i-gel had easier insertion and better sealing function, and the air-Q SP provided improved fiberoptic views in children requiring general anesthesia.
AIM: The purpose of this randomized study was to compare the i-gel(™) and the self-pressurized air-Q(™) intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) in children undergoing general anesthesia.
METHODS: Eighty children, 1-108 months of age, 7-30 kg of weight, and scheduled for elective surgery in which supraglottic airway devices would be suitable for airway management, were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or the air-Q SP. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic view were assessed three times as follows: after insertion and fixation of the device, 10 min after initial assessment, and after completion of surgery. We also assessed insertion parameters and complications.
RESULTS: Insertion of the i-gel was regarded as significantly easier compared to the air-Q SP (P = 0.04). Compared to the air-Q SP group, the i-gel group had significantly higher oropharyngeal leak pressures at all measurement points and significantly lower frequencies of gastric insufflation at 10 min after initial assessment and completion of surgery. The air-Q SP group had better fiberoptic views than the i-gel group at all measurement points.
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that the i-gel had easier insertion and better sealing function, and the air-Q SP provided improved fiberoptic views in children requiring general anesthesia.