A randomised trial comparing the i-gelTM with the LMA ClassicTM in children
A randomised trial comparing the i-gelTM with the LMA ClassicTM in children
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07072.x
复制
发表时间：
2012-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
10.7
通讯作者：
Kim, C. -S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee, J. -R.;Kim, M. -S.;Kim, C. -S.
我们在接受全身麻醉的儿童中进行了一项前瞻性随机试验，比较了I-GelTM和LMA ClassicTM。99名健康患者被随机分配到I-Gel组或LMA Classic组。测量的结果是呼吸道漏气压力、插管容易程度、插管所需时间、纤维光学检查和并发症。与LMA Classic(21.0(17.5-25.0[15.0-70.0])S，P=0.002)相比，I-Gel的中位放置时间(IQR[范围])更短(17.0(13.8-20.0[10.0-20.0]S))。两种器械的口咽漏压差异无统计学意义。74%的I-Gel组和43%的LMA Classic组的声门有良好的纤维组织学观察(p<；0.001)。无明显并发症发生。总之，与LMA Classic相比，I-Gel在儿童中提供了类似的泄漏压力，但插入时间更短，声门视觉得到改善。
We performed a prospective, randomised trial comparing the i-gelTM with the LMA ClassicTM in children undergoing general anaesthesia. Ninety-nine healthy patients were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or the LMA Classic. The outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease of insertion, time taken for insertion, fibreoptic examination and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was shorter with the i-gel (17.0 (13.8-20.0 [10.0-20.0]) s) compared with the LMA Classic (21.0 (17.5-25.0 [15.0-70.0]) s, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in oropharyngeal leak pressure between the two devices. A good fibreoptic view of the glottis was obtained in 74% of the i-gel group and in 43% of the LMA Classic group (p < 0.001). There were no significant complications. In conclusion, the i-gel provided a similar leak pressure, but a shorter insertion time and improved glottic view compared with the LMA Classic in children.