A comparison of the i‐gel™ with the LMA‐Unique™ in non‐paralysed anaesthetised adult patients

• Published in: Anaesthesia 2009-10, Vol.64 (10), p.1118-1124
• Main Authors: Francksen, H., Renner, J., Hanss, R., Scholz, J., Doerges, V., Bein, B.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• 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
• ISSN: 0003-2409; 1365-2044
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06017.x

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