Comparison of the clinical performance of i-gel and Ambu laryngeal masks in anaesthetised paediatric patients: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Paediatric supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) are widely used in routine anaesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. The inflatable Ambu laryngeal masks and non-inflatable i-gel are two improvements of SGAs based on classic laryngeal masks. The clinical performance and safety of these two devices in paediatric patients are still unclear and warrant further investigation.

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical performance and safety of Ambu laryngeal masks and i-gel in anaesthetised paediatric patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception dates to April 2020. We identified published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the intervention involved the use of Ambu laryngeal masks and i-gel in anaesthetised paediatric patients (age < 18 years). We assessed the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were insertion time, success rate of insertion on the first attempt, and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

After searching for all relevant trials published up to April 2020, data from seven RCTs with a total of 667 paediatric patients (323 and 344 participants in the i-gel and Ambu groups, respectively) were evaluated. The mean OLP in anaesthetised paediatric patients was lower in the Ambu group [21.82 cmHO for Ambu 23.98 cmHO for i-gel, = 0.003, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.58 to -0.75, = 68%, Mantel-Haenszel random model]. We did not find any clear evidence of differences between the devices in terms of insertion time, success rate of insertion, and incidence of adverse events except for blood staining (risk ratio 5.86, 95%CI: 1.76 to 19.46, = 0.004, = 0, fixed-effect model).

CONCLUSION

The i-gel airway may provide a better seal and is therefore probably more suitable than the Ambu laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetised paediatric patients. However, the evidence is insufficient to allow making firm conclusions or to guide clinical practice, owing to the small number of relevant published studies.