Ambu AuraOnce versus i-gel laryngeal mask airway in infants and children undergoing surgical procedures. A randomized controlled trial

Abdulrahman M. Alzahem, Mansoor Aqil, Tariq A. Alzahrani, Ayman H. Aljazaeri

Abstract


Objectives: To compare the efficacy and performance of the pediatric Ambu AuraOnce (Ambu AO) mask (Ambu, Copenhagen, Denmark) and i-gel mask (Intersurgical Ltd., Wokingham, United Kingdom).

 

Methods: From May 2015 to September 2016, 112 patients, 0-14 years old, underwent elective surgery at a tertiary university hospital (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia). They were randomly assigned to the Ambu AO or i-gel group. Three groups underwent a subgroup analysis: ≤5 kg (group 1), 5.1–10.0 kg (group 2), and >10 kg (group 3).

 

Results: The oropharyngeal leak pressure was significantly higher for the i-gel (25.4±4.1 cm H2O) than for the Ambu AO (22.5±3.9 cm H2O, p less than 0.001). The Ambu AO had a slightly higher ease of insertion compared to the i-gel (100% versus 94%, p=0.08)  and required less manipulation (2% versus 11%, p=0.07).The Ambu AO and i-gel showed non-significant differences in performance between weight groups. There were statistically significant differences for higher leak pressure in group 2 (p=0.01) and group 3 (p=0.002) in favor of the i-gel, and for less manipulation in the Ambu AO in group 1 (p=0.04). Fiberoptic viewing was superior in group 2 for the i-gel (p=0.03) and in group 3 for the Ambu AO (p=0.02).

 

Conclusion: Both devices demonstrated equally good performance with low morbidity. The Ambu AO had a statistical tendency towards easier insertion and less manipulation. Confirming this finding will require large scale trials.

 

Saudi Med J 2017; Vol. 38 (5): 482-490
doi: 10.15537/smj.2017.5.17960

How to cite this article:

Alzahem AM, Aqil M, Alzahrani TA, Aljazaeri AH. Ambu AuraOnce versus i-gel laryngeal mask airway in infants and children undergoing surgical procedures. A randomized controlled trial. Saudi Med J. 2017 May;38(5):482-490. doi: 10.15537/smj.2017.5.17960.

  



Keywords


i-gel; Ambu AuraOnce; laryngeal masks; pediatric; anesthesia

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brain AI. The laryngeal mask--a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth 1983; 55: 801-806.

Peker G, Takmaz SA, Baltacı B, Başar H, Kotanoğlu M. Comparison of four different supraglottic airway devices in terms of efficacy, intra-ocular pressure and haemodynamic parameters in children undergoing ophthalmic surgery. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2015; 43: 304-312.

Ismail SA, Bisher NA, Kandil HW, Mowafi HA, Atawia HA. Intraocular pressure and haemodynamic responses to insertion of the i-gel, laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal tube. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 443-448.

Miller DM. A proposed classification and scoring system for supraglottic sealing airways: a brief review. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 1553-1559.

Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Luepold B, Stucki F, Seiler S, Urwyler N, et al. Performance of the pediatric-sized i-gel compared with the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask in anesthetized and ventilated children. Anesthesiology 2011; 115: 102-110.

Polat R, Aydin GB, Ergil J, Sayin M, Kokulu T, Öztürk İ. Comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in terms of clinical performance. Braz J Anesthesiol 2015; 65: 343-348.

Shariffuddin II, Wang CY. Randomised crossover comparison of the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask with the LMA Classic laryngeal mask airway in paralysed anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 82-85.

Lopez AM, Valero R, Bovaira P, Pons M, Sala-Blanch X, Anglada T. A clinical evaluation of four disposable laryngeal masks in adult patients. J Clin Anesth 2008; 20: 514-520.

Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, Cros AM. The I-gel, a single-use supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53: 376-379.

Urbaniak GC, Plous S. Research Randomizer (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. [Updated 2017 January 7]. Available from: http://www.randomizer.org/

Drage MP, Nunez J, Vaughan RS, Asai T. Jaw thrusting as a clinical test to assess the adequate depth of anaesthesia for insertion of the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 1167-1170.

Zaballos M, Bastida E, Jiménez C, Agustí S, López-Gil MT. Predicted end-tidal sevoflurane concentration for insertion of a Laryngeal Mask Supreme: a prospective observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013; 30: 170-174.

Maino P, Dullenkopf A, Keller C, Bernet-Buettiker V, Weiss M. Cuff filling volumes and pressures in pediatric laryngeal mask airways. Paediatr Anaesth 2006; 16: 25-30.

Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Keller C. A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth 2001; 11: 319-321.

Brimacombe J, Keller C, Kurian S, Myles J. Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 127-129.

Gasteiger L, Brimacombe J, Oswald E, Perkhofer D, Tonin A, Keller C, et al. LMA ProSeal(TM) vs. i-Gel(TM) in ventilated children: a randomised, crossover study using the size 2 mask. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2012; 56: 1321-1324.

Monclus E, Garcés A, De Jose Maria B, Artés D, Mabrock M. Study of the adjustment of the Ambu laryngeal mask under magnetic resonance imaging. Paediatr Anaesth 2007; 17: 1182-1186.

Goyal R, Shukla RN, Kumar G. Comparison of size 2 i-gel supraglottic airway with LMA-ProSeal and LMA-Classic in spontaneously breathing children undergoing elective surgery. Paediatr Anaesth 2012; 22: 355-359.

Weiss M, Gerber AC, Schmitz A. Continuous ventilation technique for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) removal after fiberoptic intubation in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2004; 14: 936-940.

Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 457.

Inagawa G, Okuda K, Miwa T, Hiroki K. Higher airway seal does not imply adequate positioning of laryngeal mask airways in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth 2002; 12: 322-326.

Hagberg CA, Jensen FS, Genzwuerker HV, Krivosic-Horber R, Schmitz BU, et al. A multicenter study of the Ambu laryngeal mask in nonparalyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesth Analg 2005; 101: 1862-1866.

Beringer RM, Kelly F, Cook TM, Nolan J, Hardy R, Simpson T, et al. A cohort evaluation of the paediatric i-gel airway during anaesthesia in 120 children. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 1121-1126.

Gernoth C, Jandewerth O, Contzen M, Hinkelbein J, Genzwürker H. Comparison of two different laryngeal mask models for airway management in patients with immobilization of the cervical spine. Anaesthesia 2006; 55: 263-269.

Vaida SJ, Yodfat UA. Angulation of the airway tube in the AMBU laryngeal mask could be responsible for improved insertion success. Anesth Analg 2006; 103: 264.

Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Chang E, Sawardekar A. A cohort evaluation of the laryngeal mask airway-Supreme in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2012; 22: 759-764.

Jagannathan N, Sommers K, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Shah RD, Mukherji II, et al. A randomized equivalence trial comparing the i-gel and laryngeal mask airway Supreme in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2013; 23: 127-133.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Saudi Medical Journal is copyright under the Berne Convention and the International Copyright Convention.  Saudi Medical Journal is an Open Access journal and articles published are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC). Readers may copy, distribute, and display the work for non-commercial purposes with the proper citation of the original work. Electronic ISSN 1658-3175. Print ISSN 0379-5284.