Comparative study of fiber-optic guided tracheal intubation through intubating laryngeal mask airway LMA Fastrach™ and i-gel in adult paralyzed patients.
Airway seal pressure
LMA Fastrach
endotracheal tube
fiberoptic intubation
i-gel
Journal
Saudi journal of anaesthesia
ISSN: 1658-354X
Titre abrégé: Saudi J Anaesth
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101500601
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
2
10
2019
pubmed:
2
10
2019
medline:
2
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The i-gel is a novel and innovative supraglottic airway management device used both as an airway rescue device and as a conduit for fiberoptic intubation. In this prospective randomized study, we compared fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation through the i-gel and LMA Fastrach™ in adult paralyzed patients. After ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 60 patients of either sex were randomly allocated to either group of supraglottic airway device (SGAD). After successful insertion of the SGAD, the fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB)-guided tracheal intubation was done through the respective SGAD. The primary objectives were the ease and time taken for fiberoptic-guided intubation in either group. Secondary variables included time taken for successful placement of SGAD, ease of insertion of SGAD, airway seal pressure, ease and time of removal of SGAD, variation in hemodynamic parameters, and complications if any. Time taken for tracheal intubation in LMA Fastrach™ group was 69.53 ± 5.09 s and for the i-gel group it was 72.33 ± 6.73 s. It was seen that it was easy to insert the endotracheal tube (ETT) in 93.3% patients in the LMA Fastrach™ group and 96.7% patients in the i-gel group. Airway seal pressure was higher for the LMA Fastrach™ group. Both the SGADs were comparable in the number of attempts of insertion, ease of insertion, and insertion time. In addition, the hemodynamic variables noted did not show any increase after insertion of SGAD. There was no difficulty encountered in removal of either SGAD. I-gel may be a reliable and cost-effective alternative to LMA Fastrach™ for fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The i-gel is a novel and innovative supraglottic airway management device used both as an airway rescue device and as a conduit for fiberoptic intubation. In this prospective randomized study, we compared fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation through the i-gel and LMA Fastrach™ in adult paralyzed patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
After ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 60 patients of either sex were randomly allocated to either group of supraglottic airway device (SGAD). After successful insertion of the SGAD, the fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB)-guided tracheal intubation was done through the respective SGAD. The primary objectives were the ease and time taken for fiberoptic-guided intubation in either group. Secondary variables included time taken for successful placement of SGAD, ease of insertion of SGAD, airway seal pressure, ease and time of removal of SGAD, variation in hemodynamic parameters, and complications if any.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Time taken for tracheal intubation in LMA Fastrach™ group was 69.53 ± 5.09 s and for the i-gel group it was 72.33 ± 6.73 s. It was seen that it was easy to insert the endotracheal tube (ETT) in 93.3% patients in the LMA Fastrach™ group and 96.7% patients in the i-gel group. Airway seal pressure was higher for the LMA Fastrach™ group. Both the SGADs were comparable in the number of attempts of insertion, ease of insertion, and insertion time. In addition, the hemodynamic variables noted did not show any increase after insertion of SGAD. There was no difficulty encountered in removal of either SGAD.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
I-gel may be a reliable and cost-effective alternative to LMA Fastrach™ for fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31572071
doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_707_18
pii: SJA-13-290
pmc: PMC6753755
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
290-294Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2019 Saudi Journal of Anesthesia.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Br J Anaesth. 2002 Apr;88(4):534-9
pubmed: 12066730
Br J Anaesth. 1983 Aug;55(8):801-5
pubmed: 6349667
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2012 Jul;22(7):419-23
pubmed: 22747859
Indian J Anaesth. 2014 Jul;58(4):397-402
pubmed: 25197106
Anesthesiology. 2000 Jul;93(1):104-9
pubmed: 10861152
Br J Anaesth. 2011 Aug;107(2):243-50
pubmed: 21652615
Anaesthesia. 2008 Sep;63(9):991-5
pubmed: 18557971
Anaesthesia. 2005 Oct;60(10):1022-6
pubmed: 16179048
Br J Anaesth. 2011 Aug;107(2):251-7
pubmed: 21652616