Comparison of new generation baska mask with i-gel and classical laryngeal mask in outpatient urological interventions

Mustafa Bindal, Asli Demir, Rabia Koculu, Ulku Sabuncu, Aysegul Ozgok

Abstract


Objectives: To compare the clinical performance of the baska mask (PTY Ltd, Australia), i-gel (Intersurgical Ltd, UK) and classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) in adult patients undergoing outpatient urologic interventions.

Methods: One hundred fifty patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists I-III physical status were enrolled between January 2017 and September 2017 in Yuksek Ihtisas Research and Educational Hospital, Ankara, Turkey for elective urological surgery for this prospective randomized controlled trial. There were 50 patients in each of the following groups: baska mask, i-gel, and cLMA. In each group, the insertion times, ventilation times, ‘first attempt’ success rates, airway dynamics-complications and hemodynamic variables were evaluated.

Results: No statistically significant values were observed in means of demographic data, airway dynamics, complications, and hemodynamic variables. Insertion and ventilation times were different between groups (p less than 0.001 for each). In cLMA group, insertion and ventilation times were found to be shorter than others (insertion times 5.78±1.72 seconds and ventilation times 11.72±4.72 seconds). The longest insertion and ventilation times were observed in baska mask with 12.04±6.25 and 21.26±8.53 seconds. The ‘first attempt’ success rates were 98% for cLMA, 92% for i-gel, and 88% for baska mask. The addition maneuvering requirements in baska mask group was  20% (40/10).

 

Conclusion: When cLMA, i-gel and baska mask are compared regarding insertion and ventilating times, first attempt success rates, and additional maneuvers, cLMA and i-gel are superior to baska mask in urological ambulatory surgical cases. 

 

Saudi Med J 2019; Vol. 40 (7): 694-700
doi: 10.15537/smj.2019.7.23824


How to cite this article:
Bindal M, Demir A, Koculu R, Sabuncu U, Ozgok A. Comparison of new generation baska mask with i-gel and classical layngeal mask in outpatient urological interventions. Suadi Med J 2019; 40 (7): 694-700. doi: 10.15537/smj.2019.7.23824.


Keywords


Baska Mask; I-Gel; Laryngeal mask airway; urological interventions; supraglottic airway devices; airway complications

Full Text:

PDF

References


Liew GH, Yu ED, Shah SS, Kothandan H. Comparison of the clinical performance of i-gel, LMA supreme and LMA ProSeal in elective surgery. Singapore Med J 2016; 57: 432-437.

Aziz RA, Osman YM. Comparison of I-gel with baska mask airway for controlled ventilation in obese patients undergoing ambulatory surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Int J Clin Anesth Res 2017; 5: 29-35.

Arı DE, Ar AY, Karip CS, Siyahkoç I, Arslan AH, Akgun FN. Comparison of I-gel with classic laryngeal mask airway regarding the ease of use and clinical performance. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2015; 43: 299-303.

Pratheeba N, Ramya GS, Ranjan RV, Remadevi R. Comparison of i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway Classic™ in terms of ease of insertion and hemodynamic response: A randomized observational study. Anesth Essays Res 2016; 10: 521-525.

Chaudhary UK, Mahajan SR , Mahajan M, Sharma C, Sharma M. A comparative analysis of the baska mask versus I-gel for general anesthesia in surgical patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Medica International 2018; 5: 69-73.

Sachidananda R, Shaikh SI, Mitragotri MV, Joshi V, Ladhad DA, Mallappa M, et al. Comparison between the baska mask® and i-gel for minor surgical procedures under general anaesthesia. Turk J Anesthesiol Reanim 2019; 47: 24-30.

Park SY, Rim JC, Kim H, Lee JH, Chung CJ. Comparison of i-gel® and LMA Supreme® during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Korean J Anesthesiol 2015; 68: 455-461.

Kömür E, Bakan N, Tomruk SG, Karaören G, Doğan ZT. Comparison of the supraglottic airway devices classic, fastrach and supreme laryngeal mask airway: a prospective randomised clinical trial of efficacy, safety and complications. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2015; 43: 406-411.


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.