These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: The LMA-Supreme versus the I-gel in simulated difficult airway in children: a randomised study. Author: Kus A, Gok CN, Hosten T, Gurkan Y, Solak M, Toker K. Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol; 2014 May; 31(5):280-4. PubMed ID: 24632572. Abstract: BACKGROUND: Supraglottic airway devices such as the LMA-Supreme (LMA-S) and I-gel, which have an additional lumen for the insertion of a gastric tube, can be useful in the management of the difficult airway. OBJECTIVE: To test the performance of these two devices in the difficult paediatric airway. DESIGN: Randomised double-blind study. SETTING: Anaesthesia department, university hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II children undergoing elective surgery. INTERVENTION: After obtaining ethical approval and written informed consent from the parents, we compared the size 2 LMA-S with the I-gel in a simulated airway scenario made more difficult by using a cervical collar to limit mouth opening and neck movement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary aim was to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA-S and the I-gel. The secondary aims were to compare success rate, insertion time, time to pass a gastric tube and fibreoptic view of the larynx. RESULTS: Oropharyngeal leak pressure (mean ± SD) for the LMA-S was significantly higher than with the I-gel (20.9 ± 3.2 versus 18.9 ± 3.2 cmH2O, P = 0.019). First attempt success rate for the LMA-S was 100 and 90% for the I-gel (P > 0.05). Insertion time of the LMA-S was shorter than I-gel (11.2 ± 1.8 versus 13.5 ± 2.4 s, P = 0.001). Gastric tube placement was possible in all patients. The mean insertion time of the gastric tube was shorter with the LMA-S than with the I-gel (10.3 ± 3.6 versus 12.7 ± 3.2 s, P = 0.009). Fibreoptic laryngeal views were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In the simulated difficult airway in children, both airway devices provided effective ventilation. Paediatric size 2 LMA-S sustained a higher airway pressure before leaking and was quicker to insert than the I-gel equivalent. These differences may not be clinically significant.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]