Comparative Study of Use of I-Gel versus Endotracheal Intubation in Paediatric Patients
Authors/Creators
- 1. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesia, GMERS Medical College and Hospital, Sola, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
- 2. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesia, Banas Medical College and Research Institute, Palanpur, Gujarat
- 3. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesia, Baroda Medical College, Vadodara, Gujarat
- 4. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Research and Education, Surat, Gujarat
Description
Background and Aim: Due to availability of I-gel in different sizes, I-gel has gained increasing popularity as an alternative airway device in paediatric patients which is available in three adult and four paediatric sizes in the range. The depth of the anaesthesia for I-gel insertion is less than that required for endotracheal intubation. Present study is an effort to compare the two devices that is I-gel and Endotracheal Tube in Paediatric Patients. Material and Methods: The present study was carried out as prospective observational study at the tertiary health centre. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. Pediatric Patients posted for surgery fulfilling Inclusion criteria were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group ETT: Endotracheal intubation (n=25) and Group I-GEL: I-gel insertion (n=25). Various parameters recorded were duration of surgery, duration of anaesthesia, insertion time and number of attempts for insertion of I-gel/ Endotracheal tube, ease of insertion and complications and need for rescue anaesthesia. Results: In comparison with I-GEL group in patients of endotracheal intubation mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in postoperative period. There is no significant difference in the MAP after 60 min between two groups (p>0.05) Conclusion: I-GEL insertion is easy, requires less time and less attempts to insert as compared to endotracheal intubation. I-GEL insertion is associated with less Haemodynamic changes as compared to Endotracheal intubation. After removal of I-GEL, patient becomes haemodynamically stable earlier than Endotracheal intubation. I-GEL does not cause tracheal stimulation.
Abstract (English)
Background and Aim: Due to availability of I-gel in different sizes, I-gel has gained increasing popularity as an alternative airway device in paediatric patients which is available in three adult and four paediatric sizes in the range. The depth of the anaesthesia for I-gel insertion is less than that required for endotracheal intubation. Present study is an effort to compare the two devices that is I-gel and Endotracheal Tube in Paediatric Patients. Material and Methods: The present study was carried out as prospective observational study at the tertiary health centre. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. Pediatric Patients posted for surgery fulfilling Inclusion criteria were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group ETT: Endotracheal intubation (n=25) and Group I-GEL: I-gel insertion (n=25). Various parameters recorded were duration of surgery, duration of anaesthesia, insertion time and number of attempts for insertion of I-gel/ Endotracheal tube, ease of insertion and complications and need for rescue anaesthesia. Results: In comparison with I-GEL group in patients of endotracheal intubation mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in postoperative period. There is no significant difference in the MAP after 60 min between two groups (p>0.05) Conclusion: I-GEL insertion is easy, requires less time and less attempts to insert as compared to endotracheal intubation. I-GEL insertion is associated with less Haemodynamic changes as compared to Endotracheal intubation. After removal of I-GEL, patient becomes haemodynamically stable earlier than Endotracheal intubation. I-GEL does not cause tracheal stimulation.
Files
IJTPR,Vol13,Issue2,Article7.pdf
Files
(373.3 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:3cc5b6a2d64d539a7f6b8ca536aedb1d
|
373.3 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-01-30
Software
References
- 1. Harless J., Ramaiah, R., Bhananker S. M. J. I. J. O. C. I., Science i. Pediatric airway management. 2014; 4: 65. 2. Brambrink, A. M.; Braun, U. J. B. P.; Anaesthesiology, R. C. Airway management in infants and children. 2005; 19: 675-697. 3. Beylacq L., Bordes M., Semjen F., Cros A. M. J. A. A. S. The I‐gel®, a single‐use supraglottic airway device with a non‐ inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: An observational study in children. 2009; 53: 376-379. 4. Kannaujia A., Srivastava U., Saraswat N., Mishra A., Kumar A., Saxena S. J. I. J. O. A. A preliminary study of I-gel: A new supraglottic airway device. 2009; 53: 52. 5. Walker R. W., Ellwood J. J. P. A. The management of difficult intubation in children. 2009; 19: 77-87. 6. Haliloglu M., Bilgen S., Uzture N., Koner O. J. R. B. D. A. Simple method for determining the size of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children: a prospective observational study. 2017; 67: 15-20. 7. Jagannathan N., Sommers K., Sohn L. E., Sawardekar A., Shah R. D., Mukherji I. I., Miller S., Voronov P., Seraphin S. J. P. A. A randomized equivalence trial comparing the i‐gel and laryngeal mask airway S upreme in children. 2013; 23: 127-133. 8. Chhabra A., Gupta A., Gupta S., Chauhan K., Gupta S. J. J. O. O. A., Care C. I-gel for day care diagnostic laparoscopic gynecological surgery: A comparison of two regimes of IV propofol with dexmedetomidine or butorphanol. 2019; 9: 18. 9. Copeland G. B., Zilevicius D. J., Bedolla C. N., Islas A. L., Guerra M. N., Salazar S. J., De Lorenzo R. A., Schauer S. G., Hood R. L. J. M. M. Review of commercially available supraglottic airway devices for prehospital combat casualty care. 2022; 187: e862-e876. 10. Wong P., Sng B., Lim W. J. I. J. O. O. A. Rescue supraglottic airway devices at caesarean delivery: What are the options to consider? 2020; 42: 65-75. 11. Lee J. R. J. K. J. O. A. Anesthetic considerations for robotic surgery. 2014; 66: 3-11. 12. Avva U., Lata J. M., Kiel J. Airway Management. In StatPearls [Internet]; StatPearls Publishing, 2022. 13. Wong P., Wong J., Mok M. J. S. M. J. Anaesthetic management of acute airway obstruction. 2016; 57: 110-117. 14. Sinha P. K., Misra S. J. I. J. O. A. Supraglottic airway devices other than laryngeal mask airway and its prototypes. 2005: 49: 281-292. 15. Hewlett J. C., Rickman O. B., Lentz R. J., Prakash U. B., Maldonado, F. J. J. O. T. D. Foreign body aspiration in adult airways: therapeutic approach. 2017; 9: 3398. 16. Dhanda A., Singh S., Bhalotra A. R., Chavali S. J. T. J. O. A. Reanimation. Clinical comparison of I-gel supraglottic airway device and cuffed endotracheal tube for pressure-controlled ventilation during routine surgical procedures. 2017; 45: 270. 17. Tandale S. R., Dave N. M., Garasia M. J. M. J. O. D. D. P. U. Evaluation of the I-gel, a supraglottic airway device in children undergoing day care surgery. 2015; 8: 330. 18. Kohli M., Wadhawan S., Bhadoria P., Ratan S. K. J. J. O. A., Clinical Pharmacology. Comparative evaluation of I-gel vs. endotracheal intubation for adequacy of ventilation in pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. 2019; 35: 30.