Evaluation of the i-gel® Plus supraglottic airway device in elective surgery: a prospective international multicentre study
Language English Country Great Britain, England Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study
Grant support
CZ-DRO-VFN00064165
Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
PubMed
39110995
DOI
10.1111/anae.16401
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- elective surgery, i‐gel® Plus, oropharyngeal seal pressure, supraglottic airway device,
- MeSH
- Anesthesia, General MeSH
- Equipment Design MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Elective Surgical Procedures * MeSH
- Intubation, Intratracheal * instrumentation methods MeSH
- Cohort Studies MeSH
- Laryngeal Masks * MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Postoperative Complications epidemiology MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Airway Management instrumentation methods MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
BACKGROUND: The i-gel® Plus is a modified version of the i-gel® supraglottic airway device. It contains a wider drainage port; a longer tip; ramps inside the breathing channel; and an additional port for oxygen delivery. There has been no prospective evaluation of this device in clinical practice. METHODS: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the performance of the i-gel Plus in adult patients undergoing elective procedures under general anaesthesia. The primary outcome was overall insertion success rate, defined as the ability to provide effective airway management through the device from insertion until the end of the surgical procedure. Secondary outcomes included device performance and incidence of postoperative adverse events. Data from the first 1000 patients are reported. RESULTS: In total, 1012 patients were enrolled; 12 forms were excluded from the final analysis due to incomplete data leaving 1000 included patients (545 female). Overall insertion success rate was 98.6%, with a first-attempt success rate of insertion of 88.2%. A significant difference between females and males was seen for the overall success rate (97.4% vs. 99.6% respectively) but not for first-attempt successful insertion. Mean (SD) oropharyngeal seal pressure was 32 (7) cmH2O. The only independent factor that increased the risk of first-attempt failure was low operator experience. Complications included desaturation < 85% in 0.6%; traces of blood on the device in 7.4%; laryngospasm in 0.5%; and gastric contents inside the bowl in 0.2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The i-gel Plus appears to be an effective supraglottic airway device that is associated with a high insertion success rate and a reasonably low incidence of complications.
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Medicine Military University Hospital Prague Czech Republic
Department of Anaesthesia Antrim Area Hospital Antrim UK
Department of Anaesthesia Craigavon Area Hospital Portadown UK
Department of Anaesthesia Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Barcelona Spain
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy Medical University of Lodz Lodz Poland
See more in PubMed
Gordon J, Cooper RM, Parotto M. Supraglottic airway devices: indications, contraindications and management. Minerva Anestesiol 2018; 84: 389–397. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375‐9393.17.12112‐7.
Cook TM. Strategies for the prevention of airway complications – a narrative review. Anaesthesia 2018; 73: 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14123.
Van Zundert AA, Gatt SP, van Zundert TC, Hagberg CA, Pandit JJ. Supraglottic airway devices: present state and outlook for 2050. Anesth Analg 2024; 138: 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006673.
Richez B, Saltel L, Banchereau F, Torrielli R, Cros AM. A new single use supraglottic airway device with a noninflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study of the i‐gel. Anesth Analg 2008; 106: 1137–1139. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e318164f062.
Pandit JJ, Popat MT, Cook TM, et al. The difficult airway society ‘ADEPT’ guidance on selecting airway devices: the basis of a strategy for equipment evaluation. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 726–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2044.2011.06787.x.
Klementova O, Bhoday TK, Werner J, et al. Evaluation of the insertion parameters and complications of the i‐gel Plus airway device for maintaining patent airway during planned procedures under general anaesthesia: a protocol for a prospective multicentre cohort study. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e053215. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2021‐053215.
Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370: 1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140‐6736(07)61602‐X.
Kapila A, Addy EV, Verghese C, Brain AIJ. The intubating laryngeal mask airway: an initial assessment of performance. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 710–713. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/79.6.710.
Theiler L, Gutzmann M, Kleine‐Brueggeney M, Urwyler N, Kaempfen B, Greif R. i‐gel™ supraglottic airway in clinical practice: a prospective observational multicentre study. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109: 990–995. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes309.
Yu JH, Paik HS, Ryu HG, Lee H. Effects of thermal softening of endotracheal tubes on postoperative sore throat: a randomized double‐blinded trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2021; 65: 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13705.
Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques, 3rd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977.
Athanassoglou V, Sullivan EP, van Zundert A, Pandit JJ. New guidelines for research in airway device evaluation: time for an updated approach (ADEPT‐2) to the Difficult Airway Society's ‘ADEPT’ strategy? J Clin Monit Comput 2023; 37: 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877‐022‐00911‐4.
Michalek P, Donaldson W, Theiler L. The use of the i‐gel in anaesthesia – facts and fiction in 2013. Trends Anaesth Crit Care 2013; 3: 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tacc.2013.006.002.
Janakiraman C, Chethan DB, Wilkes AR, Stacey MR, Goodwin M. A randomised crossover trial comparing the i‐gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 674–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2044.2009.05898.x.
Keijzer C, Buitelaar DR, Efthymiou KM, et al. A comparison of postoperative throat and neck complaints after the use of the i‐gel® and LaPremiere® disposable laryngeal mask: a double‐blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Anesth Analg 2009; 109: 1092–1095. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181b6496a.
Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaya Z, Teo MM, Sia AT. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i‐gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia 2010; 65: 1173–1179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2044.2010.06534.x.
Wong DT, Yang JJ, Jagannathan N. Brief review: the LMA Supreme™ supraglottic airway. Can J Anesth 2012; 59: 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630‐012‐9673‐0.
Ní Eochagáin A, Athanassoglou V, Cumberworth A, et al. Assessing a novel second generation laryngeal mask airway using the ‘ADEPT’ approach: results from the LMA® Protector™ observational study. J Clin Monit Comput 2023; 37: 517–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877‐022‐00910‐5.
Cook TM, Gibbison B. Analysis of 1000 consecutive uses of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway™ by one anaesthetist at a district general hospital. Br J Anaesth 2007; 99: 436–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aem172.
Zaballos M, Escriba F, Lopez S, Zaballos J, Montero J, Fernandez I, Lopez AM. A multicenter and observational study of the Ambu™ AuraGain™ laryngeal mask in adult patients. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2021; 68: 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redar.2020.08.014.
Kleine‐Brueggeney M, Theiler L, Urwyler N, Vogt A, Greif R. Randomized trial comparing the i‐gel™ and Magill tracheal tube with the single‐use ILMA™ and ILMA™ tracheal tube for fibreoptic‐guided intubation in anaesthetized patients with a predicted difficult airway. Br J Anaesth 2011; 107: 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer103.
Gatward JJ, Cook TM, Seller C, Handel J, Simpson T, Vanek V, Kelly F. Evaluation of the size 4 i‐gel airway in one hundred non‐paralysed patients. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 1124–1130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2044.2008.05561.x.
Chaki T, Tachibana S, Kumita S, et al. i‐gel plus acts as a superior conduit for fiberoptic intubation than standard i‐gel. Sci Rep 2023; 13: 18381. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐023‐45631‐0.
El‐Boghdadly K, Bailey CR, Wiles MD. Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review. Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 706–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13438.
Donaldson W, Abraham A, Deighan M, Michalek P. i‐gel™ vs. AuraOnce™ laryngeal mask for general anaesthesia with controlled ventilation in paralyzed patients. Biomed Pap 2011; 155: 155–164. https://doi.org/10.5507/bp.2011.023.
Michalek P, Donaldson W, Vobrubova E, Hakl M. Complications associated with the use of supraglottic airway devices in perioperative medicine. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 746560. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/746560.
Michalek P, Donaldson WJ, Hinds JD. Tongue trauma associated with the i‐gel supraglottic airway. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 692–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2044.2009.05954_1.x.
Thiruvenkatarajan V, Van Wijk RM, Rajbhoj A. Cranial nerve injuries with supraglottic airway devices: a systematic review of published case reports and series. Anaesthesia 2014; 70: 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.12917.
Hunter JM, Aziz MF. Supraglottic airway versus tracheal intubation and the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Br J Anaesth 2021; 126: 571–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.12.015.
Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T, Bogusch G, Mager G, Kerner T. Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal device I‐gel™ in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways classic™ and ProSeal™ using a cadaver model. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102: 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aen319.
