A clinical evaluation of i-gel<sup>TM</sup>during general anesthesia in children

Kim, Hyuk; Lee, Seungyoon; Shin, Ho Jin; Lee, Ji Hyeon; Choi, So Ron; Chung, Chan Jong

doi:10.17085/apm.2015.10.1.46

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The i-gel and ETT insertions were successful on the initial attempt in all patients, although simple manipulation was needed in three patients in the i-gel group to maintain adequate ventilation. In other studies, i-gel showed similar success rates [11,19,24,25].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

A comparison of clinical performance between i-gel and endotracheal tube in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laparoscopy has extended to several procedures including herniorrhaphy, high ligation, appendectomy, and advanced gastrointestinal procedures. It has several advantages over conventional surgery. As laparoscopy is less invasive, it is associated with reduced postoperative pain and a short hospital stay [1]. For this reason, laparoscopic surgery has gained an increasing popularity among the pediatric population.However, because children exhibit lower functional residual capacity than adults, they are more likely to be affected by laparoscopic surgery and may have difficulty in maintaining

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

A comparison of clinical performance between i-gel and endotracheal tube in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another two patients required head and neck extension to achieve an adequate tidal volume. Previously published studies indicated that the i-gel tends to slide out and requires additional manipulations [12,22,23]. Accoriding to Kim et al [23], approximately 33% of pediatric patients required additional manipulations which was mainly further insertion of the i-gel.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Previously published studies indicated that the i-gel tends to slide out and requires additional manipulations [12,22,23]. Accoriding to Kim et al [23], approximately 33% of pediatric patients required additional manipulations which was mainly further insertion of the i-gel. Hughes et al [22] reported that the elastic characteristics of the i-gel may contribute to its instability upon insertion and cause it to slip out.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Clinical performance of Ambu AuraGainTM versus i-gelTM in anesthetized children: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Ambu AuraGain and i-gel have different characteristics in design each other. However, few reports evaluate which device has more benefits for ventilation in children undergoing paralyzed general anesthesia. This prospective, randomized controlled trial compared the clinical performance AuraGain and i-gel in anesthetized children.Methods: Children aged between 1 month and 7 years undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned to the AuraGain and i-gel groups. The primary outcome was initial oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary outcomes were OLP at 10 min post-insertion, first-attempt and total insertion success rates, number of attempts and ease of gastric suction catheter placement, peak inspiratory pressure, fiberoptic bronchoscopic view score, ventilation quality, requirement of additional manipulation post-insertion, and complications.Results: Data of 93 patients were analyzed. The initial OLPs of the AuraGain and i-gel were 27.5 ± 7.7 and 25.0 ± 8.0 cmH2O, respectively (P = 0.13). The OLP was significantly increased 10 min post-insertion in both groups. The initial success rates of the AuraGain and i-gel insertion were comparable. Suction catheter placement via the gastric port was easier (P = 0.02) and fiberoptic bronchoscopic view was better with the AuraGain (P < 0.001). The i-gel required additional manipulations post-insertion (P = 0.04). The incidence of complications during the emergence period was 2.2% for the i-gel and 10.8% for the AuraGain (P = 0.1)Conclusions: OLP is comparable between AuraGain and i-gel. The AuraGain would be more favorable than the i-gel for use in pediatric patients under general anesthesia considering other outcomes.

show abstract

A clinical evaluation of i-gel^TMduring general anesthesia in children

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

A comparison of clinical performance between i-gel and endotracheal tube in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries

A comparison of clinical performance between i-gel and endotracheal tube in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries

Clinical performance of Ambu AuraGainTM versus i-gelTM in anesthetized children: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A clinical evaluation of i-gelTMduring general anesthesia in children

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

A comparison of clinical performance between i-gel and endotracheal tube in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries

A comparison of clinical performance between i-gel and endotracheal tube in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries

Clinical performance of Ambu AuraGainTM versus i-gelTM in anesthetized children: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A clinical evaluation of i-gel^TMduring general anesthesia in children