No abstract

We compared proseal, supreme, and i-gel supraglottic airway devices in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressures and airway morbidities in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries. One hundred and five patients undergoing elective surgery were subjected to general anesthesia after which they were randomly distributed into three groups. Although the oropharyngeal leak pressure was lower in the i-gel group initially (mean ± standard deviation; 23.9 ± 2.4, 24.9 ± 2.9, and 20.9 ± 3.5, resp.), it was higher than the proseal group and supreme group at 30 min of surgery after the trendelenburg position (25.0 ± 2.3, 25.0 ± 1.9, and 28.3 ± 2.3, resp.) and at the 60 min of surgery (24.2 ± 2.1, 24.8 ± 2.2, and 29.5 ± 1.1, resp.). The time to apply the supraglottic airway devices was shorter in the i-gel group (12.2 (1.2), 12.9 (1.0), and 6.7 (1.2), resp., P = 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in terms of their fiber optic imaging levels. pH was measured at the anterior and posterior surfaces of the pharyngeal region after the supraglottic airway devices were removed; the lowest pH values were 5 in all groups. We concluded that initial oropharyngeal leak pressures obtained by i-gel were lower than proseal and supreme, but increased oropharyngeal leak pressures over time, ease of placement, and lower airway morbidity are favorable for i-gel.

No abstract

Purpose. The size 1 I-gel, recommended for small infants and neonates weighing 2–5 kg, has recently been released. There are no prospective studies available that assess the insertion conditions, sealing pressures, or ventilation quality of it. This study was designed to compare the performance of recently released size 1 I-gel with size 1 ProSeal LMA. Methods. Fifty infants and neonates, ASA I-II were included in this prospective, randomized, and controlled study. Patients were divided into two groups for placing I-gel or ProSeal LMA. The primary outcome was airway leak pressure, and secondary outcomes included insertion time, insertion success and conditions, initial airway quality, fiberoptic view of the larynx, and complications. Results. There were no significant differences in terms of airway leak pressure between the I-gel (27.44 ± 5.67) and ProSeal LMA (23.52 ± 8.15) (P = 0.054). The insertion time for the I-gel was shorter (12.6 ± 2.19 s) than for the ProSeal LMA (24.2 ± 6.059 s) (P = 0.0001). Insertion success and conditions were similar in groups. We encountered few complications. Conclusion. Our study demonstrates that the size 1 I-gel provided an effective and satisfactory airway as the size 1 ProSeal LMA. It may be a good alternative supraglottic airway device for use in small infants and neonates. This trial is registered with: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01704118.

No abstract