Department of Anesthesiology, Osaka City General Hospital and Children's Hospital, 2-13-22 Miyakojima-hondori, Miyakojimaku, Osaka, 534-0021, Japan.
J Anesth. 2013 Feb;27(1):1-6. doi: 10.1007/s00540-012-1477-4. Epub 2012 Sep 11.
We compared the insertion performance of the pediatric size 1.5-3 i-gel airway device with that of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) in anesthetized children in a prospective, randomized, controlled manner.
We included 134 children, aged 3 months to 15 years, scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. They were randomly divided into the i-gel and the PLMA groups according to the airway device used. The primary outcome variable was oropharyngeal leak pressure. Other outcome variables were ease of insertion, required time for insertion, fiberoptic view, and first-attempt and overall success rates.
There were no differences in the ease of insertion, insertion time, or leak pressure between the devices. Fiberoptic view was significantly better with the i-gel than with the PLMA (P = 0.002). The view was significantly better with the sizes 2, 2.5, and 3 i-gel than with the size 1.5 i-gel (P = 0.02, 0.004 and 0.002, respectively), and the view was significantly better with the sizes 2.5 and 3 PLMA than with the size 1.5 PLMA (P = 0.02 and 0.005, respectively). The first-attempt success rates were 94 and 97 % in the i-gel and the PLMA groups, respectively; the success rates including the second attempt were 100 % in both groups. No children developed side effects requiring treatment with either device.
Both the pediatric i-gel and the PLMA were successfully inserted in children. The fiberoptic view was better with the i-gel than with the PLMA.
我们以前瞻性、随机、对照的方式比较了小儿 1.5-3 号 i-gel 气道装置和 ProSeal 喉罩气道（PLMA）在麻醉儿童中的插入性能。
我们纳入了 134 名年龄在 3 个月至 15 岁之间、拟全身麻醉下择期手术的儿童。根据使用的气道装置，他们被随机分为 i-gel 组和 PLMA 组。主要结局变量为口咽漏压。其他结局变量包括插入的容易程度、插入所需时间、纤维光学视图以及首次尝试和总体成功率。
两种装置在插入的容易程度、插入时间或漏压方面无差异。i-gel 的纤维光学视图明显优于 PLMA（P=0.002）。2、2.5 和 3 号 i-gel 的视野明显优于 1.5 号 i-gel（P=0.02、0.004 和 0.002），2.5 和 3 号 PLMA 的视野明显优于 1.5 号 PLMA（P=0.02 和 0.005）。i-gel 和 PLMA 组的首次尝试成功率分别为 94%和 97%；两组的成功率均包括第二次尝试。两种装置均未发生需要治疗的不良反应。
小儿 i-gel 和 PLMA 均可成功插入儿童。i-gel 的纤维光学视图优于 PLMA。
