Abstract
BackgroundIn 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe airway leak pressure was higher with the LMA-Protector™ than with the i-gel™ (31 [7] cmH2O vs. 27 [6] cmH2O, 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 < 0.001), but ease of insertion and the first-attempt success rate were not different between the two groups. The LMA-Protector™ provided a worse fiberoptic view of the vocal cords and more difficult gastric tube insertion than the i-gel™ (both P < 0.001). Blood staining on the device was more frequent with the LMA-Protector™ than with the i-gel™ (P = 0.033). The incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat were not different between the two groups.ConclusionThe LMA-Protector™ provided a better airway sealing effect than the i-gel™. However, it required a longer insertion time, provided a worse fiberoptic view of the vocal cords, and caused more mucosal injury compared to the i-gel™.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03078517). Registered prior to patient enrollment, Date of registration: Mar 13, 2017.
Highlights
In the present study, we compare the laryngeal mask airway (LMA)-ProtectorTM and the i-gelTM in terms of adequacy of the airway seal, insertion time, ease and accuracy of insertion, and the incidence of postoperative sore throat
The airway leak pressure was significantly higher with the LMA-ProtectorTM than with the i-gelTM (31 [7] cmH2O vs. 27 [6] cmH2O, respectively; P = 0.016) Insertion time was significantly longer with the LMA-ProtectorTM than with the i-gelTM (27 [16] sec vs. 19 [16] sec, respectively, P < 0.001), but ease of insertion and the success rate on the first attempt were not different between the two groups
Gastric tube placement was more difficult through the LMAProtectorTM than through the i-gelTM (P < 0.001), and it failed in one patient through the i-gelTM and nine patients through the LMA-ProtectorTM
Summary
We compare the LMA-ProtectorTM and the i-gelTM in terms of adequacy of the airway seal, insertion time, ease and accuracy of insertion, and the incidence of postoperative sore throat. The supraglottic airway device is widely used for airway management in the anesthetic field, critical care, and emergency situations. It is especially effective in difficult airway management. The LMA-ProtectorTM (Teleflex Medical, Co. Westmeath, Ireland) is a recently developed supraglottic airway device made of medical-grade silicone which makes it more flexible and less traumatic than previous LMA devices made of polyvinylchloride. Ireland) is a recently developed supraglottic airway device made of medical-grade silicone which makes it more flexible and less traumatic than previous LMA devices made of polyvinylchloride It has a fixed, curved structure for easier insertion with an inflatable
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
