Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 68 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 627-631

Assessment of success and ease of insertion of proseal™ laryngeal mask airway versus I-gel™ insertion by paramedics in simulated difficult airway using cervical collar in different positions in manikins

1 Department of Anaesthesiology, VMMC and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
3 Department of Anaesthesiology, Shri Venkateshwara Hospital, Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ankita Kabi
Department of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Virbhadra Marg, Rishikesh - 249 203, Uttarakhand
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_72_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: Tracheal intubation, a critical intervention, performed by paramedics for airway management in trauma, has an unacceptably low success rate due to difficult airway, restricted access, and inexperience. Thus, the use of supraglottic devices to achieve ventilation has gained popularity. Aims: We aimed to compare the success rate, time to achieve ventilation, and ease of insertion of two popular supraglottic devices, ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) and I-gel™, in simulated difficult airway with limited access in manikins in different positions which were supine, head against the wall, and sitting position like in car seat. Settings and Design: This was a prospective interventional study. Materials and Methods: After a brief training, 35 paramedics were asked to insert I-gel™ and PLMA in a manikin with cervical collar in 3 positions: head end free (Group A), head against the wall (Group B), and sitting position (Group C), to simulate difficult airway. Success rate and time to achieve ventilation in each position were noted. Each participant graded ease of insertion. Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 24.0. Categorical variables were analyzed using a Pearson's Chi-square test. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. If there was a normal distribution, a paired t-test was performed. Otherwise, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Success rate with I-gel™ was significantly higher than PLMA, 91% versus 77% in Group A, 100% versus 88% in Group B, and 100% versus 74% in Group C. Time to achieve ventilation was shorter with I-gel™ than PLMA, 8.9 versus 15 s in Group A (P < 0.001), 13.1 versus 21.3 s in Group B (P < 0.01), and 18.5 versus 30.3 s in Group C (P < 0.001). Conclusion: I-gel™ can be an effective device to achieve ventilation in difficult airway with limited access in trauma. More studies are required to validate its success and safety.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded26    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal