-
Anaesthesia Oct 2014We systematically reviewed 31 adult randomised clinical trials of the i-gel(®) vs laryngeal mask airway. The mean (95% CI) leak pressure difference and relative risk... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
We systematically reviewed 31 adult randomised clinical trials of the i-gel(®) vs laryngeal mask airway. The mean (95% CI) leak pressure difference and relative risk (95% CI) of insertion on the first attempt were similar: 0.40 (-1.23 to 2.02) cmH2 O and 0.98 (0.95-1.01), respectively. The mean (95% CI) insertion time and the relative risk (95% CI) of sore throat were less with the i-gel: by 1.46 (0.33-2.60) s, p = 0.01, and 0.59 (0.38-0.90), p = 0.02, respectively. The relative risk of poor fibreoptic view through the i-gel was 0.29 (0.16-0.54), p < 0.0001. All outcomes displayed substantial heterogeneity, I(2) ≥ 75%. Subgroup analyses did not decrease heterogeneity, but suggested that insertion of the i-gel was faster than for first-generation laryngeal mask airways and that the i-gel leak pressure was higher than first generation, but lower than second-generation, laryngeal mask airways. A less frequent sore throat was the main clinical advantage of the i-gel.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Laryngeal Masks; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25040063
DOI: 10.1111/anae.12772 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 1993
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Humans; Intubation; Laryngeal Masks
PubMed: 8443517
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.306.6872.224 -
Anaesthesia Jul 2000
Topics: Equipment Design; Humans; Laryngeal Masks; Sterilization
PubMed: 10919440
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01557-13x./ -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Oct 2015
Topics: Forecasting; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Laryngeal Masks
PubMed: 25995266
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev156 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017The development of supraglottic airway devices has revolutionized airway management during general anaesthesia. Two devices are widely used in clinical practice to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The development of supraglottic airway devices has revolutionized airway management during general anaesthesia. Two devices are widely used in clinical practice to facilitate positive pressure ventilation: the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (pLMA) and the Classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA). It is not clear whether these devices have important clinical differences in terms of efficacy or complications.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (pLMA) and the Classic LMA (cLMA) for positive pressure ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1997 to April 2017); Embase (Ovid SP, 1997 to April 2017); the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1946 to April 2017); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO host, 1982 to April 2017).We searched trial registries for ongoing studies to April 2017.We did not impose language restrictions. We restricted our search to the time from 1997 to April 2017 because pLMA was introduced into clinical practice in the year 2000.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of pLMA and cLMA for positive pressure ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery. We planned to include only data related to the first phase of cross-over RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs that involved a total of 829 participants (416 and 413 participants in the pLMA and cLMA groups, respectively). We identified six cross-over studies that are awaiting classification; one is completed but has not been published, and data related to the first treatment period for the other five studies were not yet available. Seven included studies provided data related to the primary outcome, and eight studies provided data related to more than one secondary outcome.Our analysis was hampered by the fact that a large proportion of the included studies reported no events in either study arm. No studies reported significant differences between devices in relation to the primary review outcome: failure to adequately mechanically ventilate. We evaluated this outcome by assessing two variables: inadequate oxygenation (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 3.31; four studies, N = 617) and inadequate ventilation (not estimable; one study, N = 80).More time was required to establish an effective airway using pLMA (mean difference (MD) 10.12 seconds, 95% CI 5.04 to 15.21; P < 0.0001; I² = 73%; two studies, N = 434). Peak airway pressure during positive pressure ventilation was lower in cLMA participants (MD 0.84, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.67; P = 0.04; I² = 0%; four studies, N = 259). Mean oropharyngeal leak (OPL) pressure was higher in pLMA participants (MD 6.93, 95% CI 4.23 to 9.62; P < 0.00001; I² = 87%; six studies, N = 709).The quality of evidence for all outcomes, as assessed by GRADE score, is low mainly owing to issues related to blinding and imprecision.Data show no important differences between devices with regard to failure to insert the device, use of an alternate device, mucosal injury, sore throat, bronchospasm, gastric insufflation, regurgitation, coughing, and excessive leak. Data were insufficient to allow estimation of differences for obstruction related to the device. None of the studies reported postoperative nausea and vomiting as an outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain about the effects of either of the airway devices in terms of failure of oxygenation or ventilation because there were very few events. Results were uncertain in terms of differences for several complications. Low-quality evidence suggests that the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway makes a better seal and therefore may be more suitable than the Classic laryngeal mask airway for positive pressure ventilation. The Classic laryngeal mask airway may be quicker to insert, but this is unlikely to be clinically meaningful.
Topics: Adult; Elective Surgical Procedures; Humans; Laryngeal Masks; Oxygen Consumption; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 28727896
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009026.pub2 -
Anesthesiology Nov 1992
Topics: Contraindications; Humans; Laryngeal Masks
PubMed: 1443734
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199211000-00001 -
Anaesthesia Jul 2019
Topics: Capnography; Laryngeal Masks; Respiration
PubMed: 31168811
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14712 -
PloS One 2015Conflicting results have been reported for the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal (LMA-P) during general anesthesia. The objective of the current investigation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Conflicting results have been reported for the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal (LMA-P) during general anesthesia. The objective of the current investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of the i-gel vs. the LMA-P during general anesthesia.
METHODS
Two authors performed searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar to identify randomized clinical trials that compared the LMA-P with the i-gel during general anesthesia. A meta -analysis was performed using both random and fixed-effect models. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's linear regression test.
RESULTS
Twelve randomized clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. There were no significant differences in insertion success rate at the first attempt (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97, 1.06), ease of insertion (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93, 1.39), oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) (MD -1.98, 95% CI -5.41, 1.45), quality of fiberoptic view (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91, 1.10) and success rate of gastric tube insertion (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98, 1.18) between the i-gel and the LMA-P, respectively. The i-gel had a shorter insertion time than the LMA-P (MD -3.99, 95% CI -7.13, -0.84) and a lower incidence of blood staining on the device (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14, 0.49), sore throat (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15, 0.50) and dysphagia (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10, 0.74).
CONCLUSIONS
Both devices were comparable in ease of insertion to insert and both had sufficient OLP to provide a reliable airway. Only a few minor complications were reported. The i-gel was found to have fewer complications (blood staining, sore throat, dysphagia) than the LMA-P and offers certain advantages over the LMA-P in adults under general anesthesia.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Humans; Laryngeal Masks
PubMed: 25812135
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119469 -
Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy 2020Blepharoplasty can be performed under local infiltration anaesthesia with or without sedation or general anaesthesia depending upon the surgical plan, patient and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Blepharoplasty can be performed under local infiltration anaesthesia with or without sedation or general anaesthesia depending upon the surgical plan, patient and surgeon preferences, and duration of surgery. Securing the airway with an endotracheal tube or a laryngeal mask airway may cause sore throat. The primary aim of our study was to compare the incidence of this complication between the nasopharyngeal and laryngeal mask airways among patients receiving general anaesthesia during blepha-roplasty.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
One hundred forty-eight patients (40-60 years old), ASA II-III, were randomly and evenly assigned to one of two groups. After induction of general anaesthesia, a nasopharyngeal airway or a laryngeal mask airway was inserted according to group allocation. All patients received local infiltration anaesthesia given by the surgeon. Haemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, end-tidal CO2, failure rate and recovery time were monitored. Postoperative complications (mainly sore throat) as well as patients' and surgeon's satisfaction, were recorded.
RESULTS
Compared to laryngeal mask airways, the use of nasopharyngeal airways was associated with significantly lower incidence of sore throat (4.0% vs. 17.6% with a difference of 13.5%, 95% CI [3.5-24.1%], P < 0.015), shorter recovery times (10.3 min ± 2.84 min vs. 12.6 min ± 2.65 min, P < 0.001), and better patient and surgeon satisfaction (P < 0.001 for both).
CONCLUSIONS
Nasopharyngeal airways are an excellent alternative to laryngeal mask airways in anaesthetizing patients undergoing four-lid blepharoplasty surgery, with shorter recovery time, less incidence of postoperative sore throat and better patients' and surgeon's satisfaction.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Blepharoplasty; Female; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Laryngeal Masks; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 33327697
DOI: 10.5114/ait.2020.101412 -
Anesthesiology Jun 2012
Topics: Female; Humans; Laryngeal Masks; Male
PubMed: 22504150
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318255e6cb