Luthra Ankur, Chauhan Rajeev, Jain Amit, Bhukal Ishwar, Mahajan Shalvi, Bala Indu
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Department of Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Al Maryah Island, Abu Dhabi, United Arab of Emirates.
Anesth Essays Res. 2019 Oct-Dec;13(4):669-675. doi: 10.4103/aer.AER_132_19. Epub 2019 Dec 16.
The study is aimed to compare the efficacy of I-gel and ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) in nonparalysed anesthetized individuals following manufacturer-recommended digital insertion.
In this prospective randomized observational study, 40 American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients, aged 18-65 years scheduled for elective surgical procedures were allocated either to PLMA group (Group P, = 20) or the I-gel group (Group I, = 20). Following digital insertion of PLMA or I-gel, the following parameters were compared: insertion time, ease of insertion, number of attempts, failed insertion, airway reaction during insertion, oropharyngeal leak (OPL) pressure, and gastric insufflation on auscultation. Fiberoptic view of both the channels of the airway devices and ease of insertion of 12 F Ryle's tube through gastric drain channel were graded. Postoperative complications were also noted.
First attempt and overall insertion success were similar (PLMA, 85% and 100%; I-gel 80% and 100%, respectively). Mean (standard deviation) insertion times were similar (PLMA, 27.40 [11.51] s; I-gel 25.45 [9.03] s). Mean OPL pressure was 3.5 cm HO higher with PLMA ( < 0.012). The passage of Ryle's tube was easier through I-gel than PLMA. Grade I glottic view (full view of the vocal cords) was visible in 17 (85%) patients who were managed with I-gel whereas only 9 (45%) patients had Grade I view in the PLMA group.
The time required for digital insertion of PLMA and I-gel in nonparalyzed anesthetized patients is similar but PLMA forms a better oropharyngeal seal. I-gel is better positioned over the laryngeal framework and esophagus. I-gel allows easier passage of Ryle's tube through its drain channel than PLMA. The incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness was higher with PLMA.
本研究旨在比较I-gel喉罩和ProSeal喉罩气道(PLMA)在非麻痹麻醉患者中按照制造商推荐的数字插入法的有效性。
在这项前瞻性随机观察研究中,将40例年龄在18至65岁、计划进行择期手术的美国麻醉医师协会I级和II级患者分为PLMA组(P组,n = 20)或I-gel组(I组,n = 20)。在数字插入PLMA或I-gel后,比较以下参数:插入时间、插入难易程度、尝试次数、插入失败情况、插入过程中的气道反应、口咽漏(OPL)压力以及听诊时的胃内充气情况。对气道装置两个通道的纤维喉镜视野以及通过胃引流通道插入12F莱氏管的难易程度进行分级。同时记录术后并发症。
首次尝试和总体插入成功率相似(PLMA分别为85%和100%;I-gel分别为80%和100%)。平均(标准差)插入时间相似(PLMA为27.40 [11.51]秒;I-gel为25.45 [9.03]秒)。PLMA的平均OPL压力高3.5 cm H₂O(P < 0.012)。通过I-gel插入莱氏管比通过PLMA更容易。使用I-gel管理的17例(85%)患者可见I级声门视野(声带全貌),而PLMA组只有9例(45%)患者有I级视野。
在非麻痹麻醉患者中数字插入PLMA和I-gel所需时间相似,但PLMA形成的口咽密封更好。I-gel在喉框架和食管上方的位置更佳。与PLMA相比,I-gel使莱氏管更容易通过其引流通道。PLMA术后咽痛和声音嘶哑的发生率及严重程度更高。