Comparison of guided insertion of the LMA ProSeal vs the i-gel
Gasteiger, L., Brimacombe, J., Perkhofer, D., Kaufmann, M., and Keller, C. (2010) Comparison of guided insertion of the LMA ProSeal vs the i-gel. Anaesthesia, 65 (9). pp. 913-916.
|PDF (Published Version) - Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
View at Publisher Website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.20...
In a randomised, non-crossover study, we tested the hypothesis that the ease of insertion using a duodenal tube guided insertion technique and the oropharyngeal leak pressure differ between the LMA ProSeal™ and the i-gel™ in non-paralysed, anesthetised female subjects. One hundred and fifty-two females aged 19–70 years were studied. Insertion success rate, insertion time and oropharyngeal leak pressure were measured. First attempt and overall insertion success were similar (LMA ProSeal, 75/76 (99%) and 76/76 (100%); i-gel 73/75 (97%) and 75 (100%), respectively). Mean (SD) insertion times were similar (LMA ProSeal, 40 (16) s; i-gel 43 (21) s). Mean oropharyngeal leak pressure was 7 cmH2O higher with the LMA ProSeal (p < 0.0001). Insertion of the LMA ProSeal and i-gel is similarly easy using a duodenal tube guided technique, but the LMA ProSeal forms a more effective seal for ventilation.
|Item Type:||Article (Refereed Research - C1)|
|FoR Codes:||11 MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES > 1103 Clinical Sciences > 110301 Anaesthesiology @ 100%|
|SEO Codes:||92 HEALTH > 9201 Clinical Health (Organs, Diseases and Abnormal Conditions) > 920118 Surgical Methods and Procedures @ 100%|
|Deposited On:||09 May 2011 12:06|
|Last Modified:||15 Jun 2013 01:24|
Last 12 Months: 0
|Citation Counts with External Providers:||Web of Science: 0|
Repository Staff Only: item control page