A prospective, randomized comparison of the LMA-protector™ and i-gel™ in paralyzed, anesthetized patients

In the present study, we compare the LMA-Protector™ and the i-gel™ in terms of adequacy of the airway seal, insertion time, ease and accuracy of insertion, and the incidence of postoperative sore throat. In 110 anesthetized and paralyzed adult patients, the i-gel™ (n = 55) or the LMA-Protector™ (n =...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC anesthesiology 2019-07, Vol.19 (1), p.118-118, Article 118
Hauptverfasser: Chang, Jee-Eun, Kim, Hyerim, Lee, Jung-Man, Min, Seong-Won, Won, Dongwook, Jun, Kwanghoon, Hwang, Jin-Young
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In the present study, we compare the LMA-Protector™ and the i-gel™ in terms of adequacy of the airway seal, insertion time, ease and accuracy of insertion, and the incidence of postoperative sore throat. In 110 anesthetized and paralyzed adult patients, the i-gel™ (n = 55) or the LMA-Protector™ (n = 55) was inserted. The primary outcome was airway leak pressure. The secondary outcomes included the first-attempt success rate, insertion time, ease and accuracy of the device insertion, ease of gastric tube placement, blood staining on the device after removal, and incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat. The airway leak pressure was higher with the LMA-Protector™ than with the i-gel™ (31 [7] cmH O vs. 27 [6] cmH O, respectively; P = 0.016). Insertion time was longer with the LMA-Protector™ than with the i-gel™ (27 [16] sec vs. 19 [16] sec, respectively, P 
ISSN:1471-2253
1471-2253
DOI:10.1186/s12871-019-0785-8