9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A comparison of supraglottic devices in pediatric patients

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          When managing patients with a difficult airway, supraglottic airways (SGAs) have been used as rescue devices or to serve as a conduit for endotracheal intubation. The current study compares various clinical outcomes, including the bronchoscopic view of the glottis when using 2 SGAs, the Air-Q ® laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and the i-gel ® SGA, in pediatric patients.

          Methods

          Patients ≤18 years of age were prospectively randomized to receive either the Air-Q ® LMA or the i-gel ® SGA. Following SGA placement, a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope was inserted through the SGA to visualize the glottis. Time taken to obtain the bronchoscopic view and place the SGA, and the ability to seal the airway at 20 cmH 2O were compared. The bronchoscopic view obtained was graded as follows: 1) glottic aperture seen completely; 2) glottic aperture seen partially with visual obstruction <50%; 3) glottic aperture seen, but visual obstruction >50%; and 4) glottic aperture not seen.

          Results

          Fifty patients were enrolled and 48 (22/26 male/female) were included in the analysis. Median age was 13 years (IQR: 7, 16) and median weight was 49 kg (IQR: 25, 70). The Air-Q ® LMA and i-gel ® SGA groups did not differ in device placement time (median of 19 vs 21 seconds; 95% CI of difference in medians: − 2 to 7; P=0.331), the time to achieve fiberoptic view of the glottis (median of 25 vs 21 seconds; 95% CI of difference: − 9 to 8; P=0.489) or the grade of the bronchoscopic view of the airway. Eight Air-Q ® and 6 i-gel ® supraglottic devices sealed the airway at 20 cmH 2O.

          Discussion

          The time required for successful placement of the SGA, the time required for bronchoscopic view, and the quality of bronchoscopic view through the Air-Q ® LMA and the i-gel ® SGA did not differ.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients.

          We have compared four tests for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) to test the hypothesis that airway sealing pressure and inter-observer reliability differ between tests. We studied 80 paralysed, anaesthetized adult patients. Four different airway sealing pressure tests were performed in random order on each patient by two observers blinded to each other's measurements: test 1 involved detection of an audible noise; test 2 was detection of end-tidal carbon dioxide in the oral cavity; test 3 was observation of the aneroid manometer dial as the pressure increased to note the airway pressure at which the dial reached stability; and test 4 was detection of an audible noise by neck auscultation. Mean airway sealing pressure ranged from 19.5 to 21.3 cm H2O and intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.95-0.99. Inter-observer reliability of all tests was classed as excellent. The manometric stability test had a higher mean airway sealing pressure (P < 0.0001) and better inter-observer reliability (P < 0.0001) compared with the three other tests. We conclude that for clinical purposes all four tests are excellent, but that the manometric stability test may be more appropriate for researchers comparing airway sealing pressures.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A randomised trial comparing the i-gel (TM) with the LMA Classic (TM) in children.

              We performed a prospective, randomised trial comparing the i-gel(TM) with the LMA Classic(TM) in children undergoing general anaesthesia. Ninety-nine healthy patients were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or the LMA Classic. The outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease of insertion, time taken for insertion, fibreoptic examination and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was shorter with the i-gel (17.0 (13.8-20.0 [10.0-20.0]) s) compared with the LMA Classic (21.0 (17.5-25.0 [15.0-70.0]) s, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in oropharyngeal leak pressure between the two devices. A good fibreoptic view of the glottis was obtained in 74% of the i-gel group and in 43% of the LMA Classic group (p < 0.001). There were no significant complications. In conclusion, the i-gel provided a similar leak pressure, but a shorter insertion time and improved glottic view compared with the LMA Classic in children. Anaesthesia © 2012 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Med Devices (Auckl)
                Med Devices (Auckl)
                Medical Devices: Evidence and Research
                Medical Devices (Auckland, N.Z.)
                Dove Medical Press
                1179-1470
                2018
                01 October 2018
                : 11
                : 361-365
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA, senthil.krishna@ 123456nationwidechildrens.org
                [2 ]Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA, senthil.krishna@ 123456nationwidechildrens.org
                [3 ]Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Centre, Bronx, NY, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Senthil G Krishna, Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, 700 Children’s Drive, Columbus, OH 43205, USA, Tel +1 614 722 4096, Fax +1 614 722 4203, Email senthil.krishna@ 123456nationwidechildrens.org
                Article
                mder-11-361
                10.2147/MDER.S177866
                6171511
                30319293
                17645ff2-3545-4970-85a7-80c41e48a3c0
                © 2018 Krishna et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                Biotechnology
                supraglottic airways,bronchoscopic view,glottic aperture
                Biotechnology
                supraglottic airways, bronchoscopic view, glottic aperture

                Comments

                Comment on this article