Comparison of intubating LMA and I-gel for ease of insertion and as a conduit for endotracheal intubation
European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine,
2020, Volume 7, Issue 11, Pages 8654-8661
AbstractAim: To compare the intubating LMA and I-gel for ease of insertion and as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.
Methods: A prospective double blind randomized controlled study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesia & Critical Care, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India for 1 year. A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned using a chit method into two groups of 60 each. One group will be allocated I-LMA (group L) and other I-GEL (group G). Randomization will be done using concealed envelop technique. All patients will be administered injection glycopyrolate (0.004mg/kg), injection ranitidine (50mg i.v), injection ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg i.v), injection Nalbuphine (0.2mg/kg I.V) before induction. Preoxygenation with 100% oxygen for 3 minutes. Induction will be done with injection Propofol (2.5 mg/kg i.v). I-gel no.3 will be used for female and no. 4 will be used for male. Endotracheal tube size 6.5 mm/7mm for female and size 7mm/7.5mm will be used for male. Endotracheal tube will be introduced through I-gel/I-LMA.
Results: The 120 patients selected for the study were randomized into two groups of 60 each. One of the group was administered the I-gel (Group G) and the other group was given I-LMA (Group L).It was observed that insertion I-gel was easy in 48 out of 60 patients. Difficult insertion took place in 12 patients. It was observed that I-lma insertion was easy in 54 out of 60 patients. Difficult to insertion took place in 6 patients. The comparison of ease of insertion between the two groups did not reveal any statistical significance (p>0.05). I-gel was placed in first attempt in 57 out of 60 patients, 3 patients needed second attempt. The I-LMA was placed in first attempt in 54 out of 60 patients. 6 patients required second attempt for insertion and no patients required third attempt. The comparison of ease of insertion attempts between the two groups did not reveal any statistical significance (p>0.05). Endotracheal tube via I-gel was placed in first attempt in 40 out of 60 patients,7 patients required second attempt for insertion and 13 required third attempt. The I-LMA was placed in first attempt in 43 out of 60 patients, 5 patients required second attempt and 12 patients required third attempts.
Conclusion: The LMA Fastrach is a better device for blind intubation but as far as rescue ventilation is concern i-gel is better due to its easy and quick insertion.
- Article View: 123
- PDF Download: 119