Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation / 2020 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 4

Comparing I-Gel to Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airways in Infants: A Prospective Randomised Clinical Study

Sayfa
308–313
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The leakage pressure of the ProSeal group was statistically higher than the I-gel group.Conclusion: In comparison with I-gel, the use of ProSeal LMA in infants’ anaesthesia presents many advantages, such as the ease of its insertion, better oropharyngeal leakage pressure and less mucosal hyperaemia.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: Laryngeal mask airways and the I-gel have become increasingly popular for children undergoing minor surgery.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The goal of our study is to compare I-gel and ProSeal laryngeal mask airways (LMA) in infants by analysing different parameters, such as insertion success, ventilation, haemodynamic changes and postoperative complications.Methods: For this prospective, randomised study, we selected 123 infants with an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) status I, who were undergoing minor elective lower abdominal surgery.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The leakage pressure of the ProSeal group was statistically higher than the I-gel group.Conclusion: In comparison with I-gel, the use of ProSeal LMA in infants’ anaesthesia presents many advantages, such as the ease of its insertion, better oropharyngeal leakage pressure and less mucosal hyperaemia.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: Laryngeal mask airways and the I-gel have become increasingly popular for children undergoing minor surgery. The goal of our study is to compare I-gel and ProSeal laryngeal mask airways (LMA) in infants by analysing different parameters, such as insertion success, ventilation, haemodynamic changes and postoperative complications.Methods: For this prospective, randomised study, we selected 123 infants with an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) status I, who were undergoing minor elective lower abdominal surgery. After obtaining verbal and written informed consent from the parents, the infants were divided into two groups: the I-gel group (n=60) and the ProSeal LMA group (n=63). The times and ease of insertion, percentages of tidal volume leakage, and means and leakage pressures of these two supraglottic airways were noted. The complications and side-effects of each method were also recorded. Results: The insertion time of the ProSeal group was statistically shorter than that of the I-gel group. The peak and mean pressures and the leakage percentage of the ProSeal group were statistically lower than those of the I-gel group. The leakage pressure of the ProSeal group was statistically higher than the I-gel group.Conclusion: In comparison with I-gel, the use of ProSeal LMA in infants’ anaesthesia presents many advantages, such as the ease of its insertion, better oropharyngeal leakage pressure and less mucosal hyperaemia.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

OBA, S., TÜRK, H. Ş., KILINÇ, L., KARACI, B. E., İSLAMOĞLU, S. (2020). Comparing I-Gel to Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airways in Infants: A Prospective Randomised Clinical Study. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 4, 308–313. https://ajindex.com/articles/370616

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Abukawa Y, Hiroki K, Iwakiri H, Fukada T, Ozaki M. Challenge to pediatric anatomical variation: Can we draw the ideal line on the pediatric I-gel? J Anesth 2016
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Kayhan GE, Begec Z, Sanli M, Gedik E, Durmus M. Performance of size 1 I-gel compared with size 1 ProSeal laryngeal mask in anesthetized infants and neonates. ScientificWorldJournal 2015
  3. 426186. [CrossRef] 3. Liew GH, Yu ED, Shah SS, Kothandan H. Comparison of the clinical performance of i-gel, LMA Supreme and LMA ProSeal in elective surgery. Singapore Med J 2016
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Oba S, Turk HS, Isil CT, Erdogan H, Sayin P, Dokucu AI. Comparison of the Supreme™ and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airways in infants: a prospective randomised clinical study. BMC Anesthesiol 2017
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Bhattacharjee S, Som A, Maitra S. Comparison of LMA Supreme™ with i-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ in children for airway management during general anaesthesia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Anesth 2017
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Pant D, Koul A, Sharma B, Sood J. A comparative study of laryngeal mask airway size 1 vs. i-gel size 1 in infants undergoing daycare procedures. Paediatr Anaesth 2015
  7. [CrossRef] 7. Kim MS, Lee JH, Han SW, Im YJ, Kang HJ, Lee JR. A randomized comparison of the i-gel with the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2015
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Kim J, Kim JY, Kim WO, Kil HK. An ultrasound evaluation of laryngeal mask airway position in pediatric patients: an observational study. Anesth Analg 2015
  9. [CrossRef] 9. Bağuş F, Yıldız TŞ, Solak M, Toker K. Efficacy of Classical LMA and Proseal LMA in Pediatric Patients: A Comparative Study. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2011
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Goldmann K, Roettger C, Wulf H. The size 1(1/2) ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in infants: a randomized, crossover investigation with the Classic laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 2006
  11. [CrossRef] 11. Kim MS, Oh JT, Min JY, Lee KH, Lee JR. A randomised comparison of the i-gel™ and the laryngeal airway classic™ in infants. Anaesthesia 2014
  12. [CrossRef] 12. Hughes C, Place K, Berg S, Mason D. A clinical evaluation of the I-gel ™ supraglottic airway device in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2012
  13. [CrossRef] 13. Sanket B, Ramavakoda CY, Nishtala MR, Ravishankar CK, Ganigara A. Comparison of second-generation supraglottic airway devices (i-gel ver