Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best?
The objectives of the study were to compare the insertion facility, the effect on hemodynamic parameters, and effective ventilation using I-gel versus Air-Q supraglottic airway devices (SADs) for pediatric patients undergoing short-duration surgical procedures. One hundred and fifty children aged 3-...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Anesthesia, essays and researches essays and researches, 2020-07, Vol.14 (3), p.461-466 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 466 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 461 |
container_title | Anesthesia, essays and researches |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Wahba, Rami Mounir Ragaei, Milad Zekry Metry, Ayman Anis Nakhla, George Mikhael |
description | The objectives of the study were to compare the insertion facility, the effect on hemodynamic parameters, and effective ventilation using I-gel versus Air-Q supraglottic airway devices (SADs) for pediatric patients undergoing short-duration surgical procedures.
One hundred and fifty children aged 3-10 years were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group I received I-gel and Group Q received Air-Q SAD. All patients were anesthetized by sevoflurane inhalation using a face mask without neuromuscular blockade. Study outcomes included SAD insertion success rate (SR), insertion time, anatomic alignment of the SAD to the larynx as judged using fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) inserted through the SAD, and tidal volume leak, and incidence of postoperative complications.
Total and first attempt SRs were 97.3% and 85.3% for I-gel and 94.7% and 82.7% respectively, for Air-Q with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel insertion time (12.3 ± 3.6 s.) was significantly (
= 0.034) shorter than Air-Q (13.7 ± 4.2 s). FOB grading of laryngeal view through SAD was better with I-gel but without significant difference for patients who had view Grades 1-2. Percentage of tidal volume loss was significantly decreased at 5 min after insertion than immediately after insertion, in all patients, with a nonsignificant difference in favor of I-gel. Intraoperative hemodynamic changes and postoperative complications showed a nonsignificant difference between both the groups.
Both Air-Q and I-gel SAD provided advantages for pediatric anesthesia during short-duration surgical procedure with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel SAD required a shorter insertion time and provided a high SR which is satisfactory for trainees and during an emergency. I-gel SAD allowed minimization of tidal volume leak and gastric inflation and is associated with infrequent complications. |
doi_str_mv | 10.4103/aer.AER_107_20 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8159035</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A656301762</galeid><sourcerecordid>A656301762</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314o-254bf862c7448cd438b029d2e9ea1e32738182e6c33dbeaaa344b05610c65b203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkd2LEzEUxYMottS--igBX3xwar4n44NSd7u6UPAbH0Mmc6cNTCc1menS_35Tdl0VSh4uyf2dwwkHoeeULAQl_I2FuFiuvhlKSsPIIzRljFVFqbR8jKaEyaqgVLEJmqfk63ynTFVUPEUTLkjFtKymCL6P-2g3XRgG7_DSxxt7xJdw8A4SbkPEqw7c4A-Av0Dj7RBPVA9p2ELy9i2-LjbQ4QPENKaTvPj6Gv_aerfFPuEM4Q-Zff8MPWltl2B-P2fo59Xqx8WnYv354_XFcl04TkUomBR1qxVzpRDaNYLrnLpqGFRgKXBWck01A-U4b2qw1nIhaiIVJU7JmhE-Q-_ufPdjvYPGQT9E25l99DsbjyZYb_7f9H5rNuFgNJUV4TIbvLo3iOH3mKObnU8Ous72EMZkmOSaCF3KMqMv79CN7cD4vg3Z0Z1ws1RScUJLxTK1OEPl08DOu9BD6_P7OYGLIaUI7UN6SsypdZNbN39bz4IX__75Af_TMb8FunKnow</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2538048757</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best?</title><source>Medknow Open Access Medical Journals(OpenAccess)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Wahba, Rami Mounir ; Ragaei, Milad Zekry ; Metry, Ayman Anis ; Nakhla, George Mikhael</creator><creatorcontrib>Wahba, Rami Mounir ; Ragaei, Milad Zekry ; Metry, Ayman Anis ; Nakhla, George Mikhael</creatorcontrib><description>The objectives of the study were to compare the insertion facility, the effect on hemodynamic parameters, and effective ventilation using I-gel versus Air-Q supraglottic airway devices (SADs) for pediatric patients undergoing short-duration surgical procedures.
One hundred and fifty children aged 3-10 years were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group I received I-gel and Group Q received Air-Q SAD. All patients were anesthetized by sevoflurane inhalation using a face mask without neuromuscular blockade. Study outcomes included SAD insertion success rate (SR), insertion time, anatomic alignment of the SAD to the larynx as judged using fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) inserted through the SAD, and tidal volume leak, and incidence of postoperative complications.
Total and first attempt SRs were 97.3% and 85.3% for I-gel and 94.7% and 82.7% respectively, for Air-Q with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel insertion time (12.3 ± 3.6 s.) was significantly (
= 0.034) shorter than Air-Q (13.7 ± 4.2 s). FOB grading of laryngeal view through SAD was better with I-gel but without significant difference for patients who had view Grades 1-2. Percentage of tidal volume loss was significantly decreased at 5 min after insertion than immediately after insertion, in all patients, with a nonsignificant difference in favor of I-gel. Intraoperative hemodynamic changes and postoperative complications showed a nonsignificant difference between both the groups.
Both Air-Q and I-gel SAD provided advantages for pediatric anesthesia during short-duration surgical procedure with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel SAD required a shorter insertion time and provided a high SR which is satisfactory for trainees and during an emergency. I-gel SAD allowed minimization of tidal volume leak and gastric inflation and is associated with infrequent complications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0259-1162</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2229-7685</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_107_20</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34092859</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Children ; Health aspects ; Original ; Pediatric anesthesia</subject><ispartof>Anesthesia, essays and researches, 2020-07, Vol.14 (3), p.461-466</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2021 Anesthesia: Essays and Researches.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright: © 2021 Anesthesia: Essays and Researches 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8159035/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8159035/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27903,27904,53770,53772</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34092859$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wahba, Rami Mounir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ragaei, Milad Zekry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Metry, Ayman Anis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakhla, George Mikhael</creatorcontrib><title>Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best?</title><title>Anesthesia, essays and researches</title><addtitle>Anesth Essays Res</addtitle><description>The objectives of the study were to compare the insertion facility, the effect on hemodynamic parameters, and effective ventilation using I-gel versus Air-Q supraglottic airway devices (SADs) for pediatric patients undergoing short-duration surgical procedures.
One hundred and fifty children aged 3-10 years were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group I received I-gel and Group Q received Air-Q SAD. All patients were anesthetized by sevoflurane inhalation using a face mask without neuromuscular blockade. Study outcomes included SAD insertion success rate (SR), insertion time, anatomic alignment of the SAD to the larynx as judged using fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) inserted through the SAD, and tidal volume leak, and incidence of postoperative complications.
Total and first attempt SRs were 97.3% and 85.3% for I-gel and 94.7% and 82.7% respectively, for Air-Q with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel insertion time (12.3 ± 3.6 s.) was significantly (
= 0.034) shorter than Air-Q (13.7 ± 4.2 s). FOB grading of laryngeal view through SAD was better with I-gel but without significant difference for patients who had view Grades 1-2. Percentage of tidal volume loss was significantly decreased at 5 min after insertion than immediately after insertion, in all patients, with a nonsignificant difference in favor of I-gel. Intraoperative hemodynamic changes and postoperative complications showed a nonsignificant difference between both the groups.
Both Air-Q and I-gel SAD provided advantages for pediatric anesthesia during short-duration surgical procedure with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel SAD required a shorter insertion time and provided a high SR which is satisfactory for trainees and during an emergency. I-gel SAD allowed minimization of tidal volume leak and gastric inflation and is associated with infrequent complications.</description><subject>Children</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Pediatric anesthesia</subject><issn>0259-1162</issn><issn>2229-7685</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkd2LEzEUxYMottS--igBX3xwar4n44NSd7u6UPAbH0Mmc6cNTCc1menS_35Tdl0VSh4uyf2dwwkHoeeULAQl_I2FuFiuvhlKSsPIIzRljFVFqbR8jKaEyaqgVLEJmqfk63ynTFVUPEUTLkjFtKymCL6P-2g3XRgG7_DSxxt7xJdw8A4SbkPEqw7c4A-Av0Dj7RBPVA9p2ELy9i2-LjbQ4QPENKaTvPj6Gv_aerfFPuEM4Q-Zff8MPWltl2B-P2fo59Xqx8WnYv354_XFcl04TkUomBR1qxVzpRDaNYLrnLpqGFRgKXBWck01A-U4b2qw1nIhaiIVJU7JmhE-Q-_ufPdjvYPGQT9E25l99DsbjyZYb_7f9H5rNuFgNJUV4TIbvLo3iOH3mKObnU8Ous72EMZkmOSaCF3KMqMv79CN7cD4vg3Z0Z1ws1RScUJLxTK1OEPl08DOu9BD6_P7OYGLIaUI7UN6SsypdZNbN39bz4IX__75Af_TMb8FunKnow</recordid><startdate>20200701</startdate><enddate>20200701</enddate><creator>Wahba, Rami Mounir</creator><creator>Ragaei, Milad Zekry</creator><creator>Metry, Ayman Anis</creator><creator>Nakhla, George Mikhael</creator><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Wolters Kluwer - Medknow</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200701</creationdate><title>Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best?</title><author>Wahba, Rami Mounir ; Ragaei, Milad Zekry ; Metry, Ayman Anis ; Nakhla, George Mikhael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314o-254bf862c7448cd438b029d2e9ea1e32738182e6c33dbeaaa344b05610c65b203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Children</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Pediatric anesthesia</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wahba, Rami Mounir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ragaei, Milad Zekry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Metry, Ayman Anis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakhla, George Mikhael</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Anesthesia, essays and researches</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wahba, Rami Mounir</au><au>Ragaei, Milad Zekry</au><au>Metry, Ayman Anis</au><au>Nakhla, George Mikhael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best?</atitle><jtitle>Anesthesia, essays and researches</jtitle><addtitle>Anesth Essays Res</addtitle><date>2020-07-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>461</spage><epage>466</epage><pages>461-466</pages><issn>0259-1162</issn><eissn>2229-7685</eissn><abstract>The objectives of the study were to compare the insertion facility, the effect on hemodynamic parameters, and effective ventilation using I-gel versus Air-Q supraglottic airway devices (SADs) for pediatric patients undergoing short-duration surgical procedures.
One hundred and fifty children aged 3-10 years were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group I received I-gel and Group Q received Air-Q SAD. All patients were anesthetized by sevoflurane inhalation using a face mask without neuromuscular blockade. Study outcomes included SAD insertion success rate (SR), insertion time, anatomic alignment of the SAD to the larynx as judged using fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) inserted through the SAD, and tidal volume leak, and incidence of postoperative complications.
Total and first attempt SRs were 97.3% and 85.3% for I-gel and 94.7% and 82.7% respectively, for Air-Q with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel insertion time (12.3 ± 3.6 s.) was significantly (
= 0.034) shorter than Air-Q (13.7 ± 4.2 s). FOB grading of laryngeal view through SAD was better with I-gel but without significant difference for patients who had view Grades 1-2. Percentage of tidal volume loss was significantly decreased at 5 min after insertion than immediately after insertion, in all patients, with a nonsignificant difference in favor of I-gel. Intraoperative hemodynamic changes and postoperative complications showed a nonsignificant difference between both the groups.
Both Air-Q and I-gel SAD provided advantages for pediatric anesthesia during short-duration surgical procedure with nonsignificant differences. However, I-gel SAD required a shorter insertion time and provided a high SR which is satisfactory for trainees and during an emergency. I-gel SAD allowed minimization of tidal volume leak and gastric inflation and is associated with infrequent complications.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</pub><pmid>34092859</pmid><doi>10.4103/aer.AER_107_20</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0259-1162 |
ispartof | Anesthesia, essays and researches, 2020-07, Vol.14 (3), p.461-466 |
issn | 0259-1162 2229-7685 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8159035 |
source | Medknow Open Access Medical Journals(OpenAccess); PubMed Central; EZB Electronic Journals Library; PubMed Central Open Access |
subjects | Children Health aspects Original Pediatric anesthesia |
title | Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T16%3A01%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Supraglottic%20Airway%20Devices%20for%20Elective%20Pediatric%20Anesthesia:%20I-gel%20versus%20Air-Q,%20Which%20is%20the%20Best?&rft.jtitle=Anesthesia,%20essays%20and%20researches&rft.au=Wahba,%20Rami%20Mounir&rft.date=2020-07-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=461&rft.epage=466&rft.pages=461-466&rft.issn=0259-1162&rft.eissn=2229-7685&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/aer.AER_107_20&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA656301762%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2538048757&rft_id=info:pmid/34092859&rft_galeid=A656301762&rfr_iscdi=true |