Clinical performance comparison of I-gel insertion by anesthesiology residents versus novice clinicians.
10.17085/apm.2015.10.4.312
- Author:
Kwang Ho LEE
1
;
Ji Young LEE
;
Ji Hyoung PARK
;
Sangwoo JUNG
;
Yeonggwan JEON
;
John Junghun SHIN
;
Hyun Kyo LIM
Author Information
1. Departments of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Wonju, Korea. hyunkyolim@yonsei.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Airway management;
I-gel
- MeSH:
Airway Management;
Anesthesiology*;
Hemorrhage;
Hoarseness;
Humans;
Intubation;
Intubation, Intratracheal;
Laryngeal Masks;
Pharyngitis;
Postoperative Complications;
Prospective Studies
- From:Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
2015;10(4):312-316
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: I-gel is a recently developed supraglottic airway device with many advantages. Like laryngeal mask airway (LMA), I-gel is an easier and quicker intubation alternative to endotracheal intubation in certain situations. In this study, we assessed the ease of I-gel insertion and compared the clinical performance of anesthetsiology residents (group R) experienced in endotracheal intubation versus that of interns (group I) with little intubation experience. METHODS: This prospective and randomized study included 60 patients. The ease of insertion, number of I-gel insertion attempts, presence of air leakage, and postoperative complications such as bleeding, dental trauma, hoarseness, and sore throat were evaluated in each group. RESULTS: Insertion was successful on the initial attempt in 29 of 30 cases in group R. In group I, 24 initial insertions were successful. The mean insertion times were 12.5 +/- 4.8 and 27.9 +/- 12.5 seconds for group R and group I, respectively (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding postintubational air leakage. Regarding complications, two cases of bleeding, one case of dental trauma, and two cases of sore throat were recorded. No significant differences were observed between the two groups for any of the complications examined. CONCLUSIONS: I-gel is a suitable alternative insertion device that enables rapid and easy intubation by physicians who are experienced with endotracheal intubation. Moreover, this device also enables efficient and safe insertion during emergent situations for novice clinicians, even those who have little experience in intubation.
