Basheer Padinhare Madathil Abdul1, Hema2, Kutty Mani Maaran3
AIM
To assess the ease of insertion of I-gel and ProSeal LMA and incidence of post op complications. Study design-A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical performance of I-gel and ProSeal LMA.
METHODS
After induction and good muscle relaxation LMA/I-gel was introduced as per randomised computer allocation. After insertion, nasogastric tube was inserted through the gastric channel. Parameters monitored were heart rate, nubp, SpO2, ETCO2 at 1, 5 minutes after insertion of the device and thereafter every 5 minutes till the end of surgery. In case of failure, airway was secured with an endotracheal tube. Ease of gastric tube insertion was noted at the end of surgery; postop complications were noted. Blood staining of the device, injury to the lips, teeth, and tongue were noted. Incidence of sore throat 24 hrs. after surgery was also noted. Statistical analysis was done with SPSS software.
RESULTS
Age, height, weight and BMI were comparable in both groups. The airway characteristics was also comparable in both the groups. Ease of introduction was also the same for both the groups, but the time taken was much lesser for I-gel group. The ease of insertion of gastric tube was much easier for the I-gel group. Blood staining of the device was more with the ProSeal LMA group. There was no injury to any of the structures mentioned above. Postop sore throat was more in the ProSeal LMA group.
CONCLUSION
From our study, we conclude that the airway can be secured much faster with I-gel than ProSeal LMA. Postop sore throat was much less for I-gel than ProSeal LMA. Both were comparable in number of attempts of insertion, gastric tube introduction. Trauma to the airway structures was also minimum with both I-gel and ProSeal LMA.
