A comparison of the i‐gel™ with the LMA‐Unique™ in non‐paralysed anaesthetised adult patients
Summary This study assessed two disposable devices; the newly developed supraglottic airway device i‐gel™ and the LMA‐Unique™ in routine clinical practice. Eighty patients (ASA 1–3) undergoing minor routine gynaecologic surgery were randomly allocated to have an i‐gel (n = 40) or LMA‐Unique (n = 40)...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Anaesthesia 2009-10, Vol.64 (10), p.1118-1124 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1124 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 1118 |
| container_title | Anaesthesia |
| container_volume | 64 |
| creator | Francksen, H. Renner, J. Hanss, R. Scholz, J. Doerges, V. Bein, B. |
| description | Summary
This study assessed two disposable devices; the newly developed supraglottic airway device i‐gel™ and the LMA‐Unique™ in routine clinical practice. Eighty patients (ASA 1–3) undergoing minor routine gynaecologic surgery were randomly allocated to have an i‐gel (n = 40) or LMA‐Unique (n = 40) inserted. Oxygen saturation, end‐tidal carbon dioxide, tidal volume and peak airway pressure were recorded, as well as time of insertion, airway leak pressure, postoperative sore‐throat, dysphonia and dysphagia for each device. Time of insertion was comparable with the i‐gel and LMA‐Unique. There was no failure in the i‐gel group and one failure in the LMA‐Unique group. Ventilation and oxygenation were similar between devices. Mean airway pressure was comparable with both devices, whereas airway leak pressure was significantly higher (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06017.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_197375335</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1852585141</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4257-97456494d383eb6d8998429c5f37cbb364605b60d81f5265fa0e4d7f851a5e4d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkEtOwzAQhi0EoqVwBWQhsUwYx3YSb5CiqjykAhtYW07igKvUKXEq6I4FB-AMHK0nwWkr2OKN5_H94_GPECYQEn8uZiGhMQ8iYCyMAEQIMZAkfN9Dw9_GPhoCAA0iBmKAjpybAZAoJekhGhCRUM6ADdFzhotmvlCtcY3FTYW7F43N-uPrWdfrz2_8ZrqXTW16l_nqkzWvS903jMW2sb7ktapeOV1iZZV2nu3MJiuXdYcXqjPadu4YHVSqdvpkd4_Q09XkcXwTTB-ub8fZNChYxJNAJIzHTLCSplTncZkKkbJIFLyiSZHnNGYx8DyGMiUVj2JeKdCsTKqUE8V9REfobDt30TZ-U9fJWbNsrX9S9p9OOKXcQ-kWKtrGuVZXctGauWpXkoDsDZYz2fsoex9lb7DcGCzfvfR0N3-Zz3X5J9w56oHzHaBcoeqqVbYw7peLiCCsX2OELrfcm6n16t8LyOw-m_Qh_QFi_5pd</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>197375335</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of the i‐gel™ with the LMA‐Unique™ in non‐paralysed anaesthetised adult patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><creator>Francksen, H. ; Renner, J. ; Hanss, R. ; Scholz, J. ; Doerges, V. ; Bein, B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Francksen, H. ; Renner, J. ; Hanss, R. ; Scholz, J. ; Doerges, V. ; Bein, B.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
This study assessed two disposable devices; the newly developed supraglottic airway device i‐gel™ and the LMA‐Unique™ in routine clinical practice. Eighty patients (ASA 1–3) undergoing minor routine gynaecologic surgery were randomly allocated to have an i‐gel (n = 40) or LMA‐Unique (n = 40) inserted. Oxygen saturation, end‐tidal carbon dioxide, tidal volume and peak airway pressure were recorded, as well as time of insertion, airway leak pressure, postoperative sore‐throat, dysphonia and dysphagia for each device. Time of insertion was comparable with the i‐gel and LMA‐Unique. There was no failure in the i‐gel group and one failure in the LMA‐Unique group. Ventilation and oxygenation were similar between devices. Mean airway pressure was comparable with both devices, whereas airway leak pressure was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the i‐gel group (mean 29 cmH2O, range 24–40) compared with the LMA‐Unique group (mean 18 cmH2O, range 6–30). Fibreoptic score of the position of the devices was significantly better in the i‐gel group. Post‐operative sore‐throat and dysphagia were comparable with both devices. Both devices appeared to be simple alternatives to secure the airway. Significantly higher airway leak pressure suggests that the i‐gel may be advantageous in this respect.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-2409</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2044</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06017.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19735404</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ANASAB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Airway management ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia, General ; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Biological and medical sciences ; Comparative studies ; Deglutition Disorders - etiology ; Disposable Equipment ; Equipment Design ; Female ; Fiber Optic Technology ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures ; Humans ; Intubation, Gastrointestinal - instrumentation ; Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects ; Male ; Medical equipment ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Minor Surgical Procedures ; Oxygen - blood ; Pharyngitis - etiology ; Prospective Studies ; Surgery ; Tidal Volume</subject><ispartof>Anaesthesia, 2009-10, Vol.64 (10), p.1118-1124</ispartof><rights>2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2009 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4257-97456494d383eb6d8998429c5f37cbb364605b60d81f5265fa0e4d7f851a5e4d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4257-97456494d383eb6d8998429c5f37cbb364605b60d81f5265fa0e4d7f851a5e4d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2044.2009.06017.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2044.2009.06017.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,1428,27905,27906,45555,45556,46390,46814</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=21914375$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19735404$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Francksen, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renner, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanss, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scholz, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doerges, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bein, B.</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of the i‐gel™ with the LMA‐Unique™ in non‐paralysed anaesthetised adult patients</title><title>Anaesthesia</title><addtitle>Anaesthesia</addtitle><description>Summary
This study assessed two disposable devices; the newly developed supraglottic airway device i‐gel™ and the LMA‐Unique™ in routine clinical practice. Eighty patients (ASA 1–3) undergoing minor routine gynaecologic surgery were randomly allocated to have an i‐gel (n = 40) or LMA‐Unique (n = 40) inserted. Oxygen saturation, end‐tidal carbon dioxide, tidal volume and peak airway pressure were recorded, as well as time of insertion, airway leak pressure, postoperative sore‐throat, dysphonia and dysphagia for each device. Time of insertion was comparable with the i‐gel and LMA‐Unique. There was no failure in the i‐gel group and one failure in the LMA‐Unique group. Ventilation and oxygenation were similar between devices. Mean airway pressure was comparable with both devices, whereas airway leak pressure was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the i‐gel group (mean 29 cmH2O, range 24–40) compared with the LMA‐Unique group (mean 18 cmH2O, range 6–30). Fibreoptic score of the position of the devices was significantly better in the i‐gel group. Post‐operative sore‐throat and dysphagia were comparable with both devices. Both devices appeared to be simple alternatives to secure the airway. Significantly higher airway leak pressure suggests that the i‐gel may be advantageous in this respect.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Airway management</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia, General</subject><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Deglutition Disorders - etiology</subject><subject>Disposable Equipment</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fiber Optic Technology</subject><subject>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Minor Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Oxygen - blood</subject><subject>Pharyngitis - etiology</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Tidal Volume</subject><issn>0003-2409</issn><issn>1365-2044</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkEtOwzAQhi0EoqVwBWQhsUwYx3YSb5CiqjykAhtYW07igKvUKXEq6I4FB-AMHK0nwWkr2OKN5_H94_GPECYQEn8uZiGhMQ8iYCyMAEQIMZAkfN9Dw9_GPhoCAA0iBmKAjpybAZAoJekhGhCRUM6ADdFzhotmvlCtcY3FTYW7F43N-uPrWdfrz2_8ZrqXTW16l_nqkzWvS903jMW2sb7ktapeOV1iZZV2nu3MJiuXdYcXqjPadu4YHVSqdvpkd4_Q09XkcXwTTB-ub8fZNChYxJNAJIzHTLCSplTncZkKkbJIFLyiSZHnNGYx8DyGMiUVj2JeKdCsTKqUE8V9REfobDt30TZ-U9fJWbNsrX9S9p9OOKXcQ-kWKtrGuVZXctGauWpXkoDsDZYz2fsoex9lb7DcGCzfvfR0N3-Zz3X5J9w56oHzHaBcoeqqVbYw7peLiCCsX2OELrfcm6n16t8LyOw-m_Qh_QFi_5pd</recordid><startdate>200910</startdate><enddate>200910</enddate><creator>Francksen, H.</creator><creator>Renner, J.</creator><creator>Hanss, R.</creator><creator>Scholz, J.</creator><creator>Doerges, V.</creator><creator>Bein, B.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200910</creationdate><title>A comparison of the i‐gel™ with the LMA‐Unique™ in non‐paralysed anaesthetised adult patients</title><author>Francksen, H. ; Renner, J. ; Hanss, R. ; Scholz, J. ; Doerges, V. ; Bein, B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4257-97456494d383eb6d8998429c5f37cbb364605b60d81f5265fa0e4d7f851a5e4d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Airway management</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia, General</topic><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Deglutition Disorders - etiology</topic><topic>Disposable Equipment</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fiber Optic Technology</topic><topic>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Minor Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Oxygen - blood</topic><topic>Pharyngitis - etiology</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Tidal Volume</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Francksen, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renner, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanss, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scholz, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doerges, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bein, B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Anaesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Francksen, H.</au><au>Renner, J.</au><au>Hanss, R.</au><au>Scholz, J.</au><au>Doerges, V.</au><au>Bein, B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of the i‐gel™ with the LMA‐Unique™ in non‐paralysed anaesthetised adult patients</atitle><jtitle>Anaesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>Anaesthesia</addtitle><date>2009-10</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1118</spage><epage>1124</epage><pages>1118-1124</pages><issn>0003-2409</issn><eissn>1365-2044</eissn><coden>ANASAB</coden><abstract>Summary
This study assessed two disposable devices; the newly developed supraglottic airway device i‐gel™ and the LMA‐Unique™ in routine clinical practice. Eighty patients (ASA 1–3) undergoing minor routine gynaecologic surgery were randomly allocated to have an i‐gel (n = 40) or LMA‐Unique (n = 40) inserted. Oxygen saturation, end‐tidal carbon dioxide, tidal volume and peak airway pressure were recorded, as well as time of insertion, airway leak pressure, postoperative sore‐throat, dysphonia and dysphagia for each device. Time of insertion was comparable with the i‐gel and LMA‐Unique. There was no failure in the i‐gel group and one failure in the LMA‐Unique group. Ventilation and oxygenation were similar between devices. Mean airway pressure was comparable with both devices, whereas airway leak pressure was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the i‐gel group (mean 29 cmH2O, range 24–40) compared with the LMA‐Unique group (mean 18 cmH2O, range 6–30). Fibreoptic score of the position of the devices was significantly better in the i‐gel group. Post‐operative sore‐throat and dysphagia were comparable with both devices. Both devices appeared to be simple alternatives to secure the airway. Significantly higher airway leak pressure suggests that the i‐gel may be advantageous in this respect.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>19735404</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06017.x</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0003-2409 |
| ispartof | Anaesthesia, 2009-10, Vol.64 (10), p.1118-1124 |
| issn | 0003-2409 1365-2044 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_197375335 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Free Content |
| subjects | Adult Aged Airway management Anesthesia Anesthesia, General Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy Biological and medical sciences Comparative studies Deglutition Disorders - etiology Disposable Equipment Equipment Design Female Fiber Optic Technology Gynecologic Surgical Procedures Humans Intubation, Gastrointestinal - instrumentation Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects Male Medical equipment Medical sciences Middle Aged Minor Surgical Procedures Oxygen - blood Pharyngitis - etiology Prospective Studies Surgery Tidal Volume |
| title | A comparison of the i‐gel™ with the LMA‐Unique™ in non‐paralysed anaesthetised adult patients |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T07%3A53%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20the%20i%E2%80%90gel%E2%84%A2%20with%20the%20LMA%E2%80%90Unique%E2%84%A2%20in%20non%E2%80%90paralysed%20anaesthetised%20adult%20patients&rft.jtitle=Anaesthesia&rft.au=Francksen,%20H.&rft.date=2009-10&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1118&rft.epage=1124&rft.pages=1118-1124&rft.issn=0003-2409&rft.eissn=1365-2044&rft.coden=ANASAB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06017.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1852585141%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=197375335&rft_id=info:pmid/19735404&rfr_iscdi=true |