Anesth Pain Med.  2023 Jan;18(1):51-56. 10.17085/apm.22209.

Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of I-gel^TM and Blockbuster^TM laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized pediatric patients

• Selvin CC
• Singariya G
• Bihani P
• Kamal M
• Paliwal N
• Ujwal S

• KMID: 2540334
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.17085/apm.22209

Abstract

Background
Supraglottic airways (SGA) are increasingly used in pediatric anesthesia.Among SGA, I-gelTM is a commonly used device in pediatric patients. The BlockbusterTM laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is latest addition in pediatric airway armamentarium. This studywas conducted to compare the clinical performance of I-gelTM and BlockbusterTM LMA in pediatric patients.Methods: A total of 140 children aged 1–5 years, who were undergoing elective surgery,were randomized into two groups either I-gelTM (Group I) or BlockbusterTM LMA (Group B). Airway was secured with appropriate-sized LMA according to group allocation under generalanesthesia. The primary objective of study was oropharyngeal leak pressures (OPLP), andsecondary objectives were number of attempts of device insertion, success rate, ease ofLMA insertion, hemodynamic parameters, and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidities.Results: The mean OPLP was significantly higher for I-gelTM compared to BlockbusterTM LMA(27.97 ± 1.65 vs. 26.04 ± 2.12; P < 0.001). The devices were successfully inserted on thefirst attempt in 97.14% and 90% of the Group I and Group B respectively. The insertion time,ease of insertion, hemodynamic parameters and postoperative complications were comparable between groups.Conclusions: The I-gelTM was more efficacious device in term of OPLP than BlockbusterTMLMA for positive pressure ventilation in pediatric patients undergoing short surgical procedures under general anesthesia.

Keyword

Blockbuster LMA; i-gel; Pediatric anesthesia; Supraglottic airways

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. CONSORT flow diagram. CONSORT: consolidated standards of reporting trials.

• 

  Fig. 2. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure. OLP: oropharyngeal leak pressure.

Reference

1. Brain AI. The laryngeal mask--a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth. 1983; 55:801–5.

2. Woodall NM, Cook TM. National census of airway management techniques used for anaesthesia in the UK: first phase of the Fourth National Audit Project at the Royal College of Anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth. 2011; 106:266–71.

3. Bradley AE, White MC, Engelhardt T, Bayley G, Beringer RM. Current UK practice of pediatric supraglottic airway devices - a survey of members of the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Paediatr Anaesth. 2013; 23:1006–9.

4. Mihara T, Asakura A, Owada G, Yokoi A, Ka K, Goto T. A network meta-analysis of the clinical properties of various types of supraglottic airway device in children. Anaesthesia. 2017; 72:1251–64.

5. Khare A, Awana P, Thada B, Mathur V, Kumar P. A Randomized comparative study to observe the safety and efficacy of I gel and blockbuster laryngeal mask airway used in patients undergoing short surgical procedure under general anesthesia. Indian Anaesth Forum. 2022; 23:111–7.

6. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Keller C. A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001; 11:319–21.

7. Kim H, Lee JY, Lee SY, Park SY, Lee SC, Chung CJ. A comparison of I-gel^TM and LMA SupremeTM in anesthetized and paralyzed children. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014; 67:317–22.

8. Kumar CM, Van Zundert TC, Seet E, Van Zundert AA. Time to consider supraglottic airway device oropharyngeal leak pressure measurement more objectively. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021; 65:142–5.

9. Jagannathan N, Ramsey MA, White MC, Sohn L. An update on newer pediatric supraglottic airways with recommendations for clinical use. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015; 25:334–45.

10. Damodaran S, Sethi S, Malhotra SK, Samra T, Maitra S, Saini V. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of air-QTM, I-gel^TM, and laryngeal mask airway supreme^TM in adult patients during general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017; 11:390–5.

11. Joshi R, Rudingwa P, Kundra P, Panneerselvam S, Mishra SK. Comparision of Ambu AuraGainM^TM and LMA^® ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation. Indian J Anaesth. 2018; 62:455–60.

12. Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P. Evaluation of I-gel^TM airway in children: a meta-analysis. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014; 24:1072–9.

13. Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Luepold B, Stucki F, Seiler S, Urwyler N, et al. Performance of the pediatric-sized I-gel compared with the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask in anesthetized and ventilated children. Anesthesiology. 2011; 115:102–10.

14. Beringer RM, Kelly F, Cook TM, Nolan J, Hardy R, Simpson T, et al. A cohort evaluation of the paediatric I-gel^TM airway during anaesthesia in 120 children. Anaesthesia. 2011; 66:1121–6.

15. Aggarwal M, Yadav R, Singh S, Bansal D. Clinical comparison of I-gel and laryngeal mask airway-supreme airway devices during general anaesthesia in the paediatric population. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2021; 49:244–9.

16. Endigeri A, Ganeshnavar A, Varaprasad B, Shivanand YH, Ayyangouda B. Comparison of success rate of BlockBuster^® versus Fastrach^® LMA as conduit for blind endotracheal intubation: a prospective randomised trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2019; 63:988–94.

17. Mihara T, Nakayama R, Ka K, Goto T. Comparison of the clinical performance of I-gel and Ambu AuraGain in children: a randomised noninferiority clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019; 36:411–7.