Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
 |
Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid | |
Excerpt
Materials and Methods: 32 investigators (12 staff member, 10 anesthesia residents and 10 CRNA) with no previous experience in using neither the I-Gel nor the LFD volunteered to participate in this study. The number of insertion attempts, time to achieve an effective airway and the handling of insertion of both devices were recorded. Blind intubation via both devices was performed using either an ID 7.0 mm Portex silicones tube (PT), an ID 7.0 mm Mallinckrodt PVC tube (MT) or an ID 7.0 mm LMA FastrachTM tube (LFT). Failure rate, attempts and time for successful intubation were obtained.
Results and Discussion: The I-gel was inserted successfully with the first attempt by all investigators, whereas the insertion of the LFD was successful in 90% with the first attempt and in 10% with second attempt. Insertion time was significantly shorter in I-Gel group (p<0.0001). Intubation time via LFD was significantly shorter for LFT (12±3 sec) compared to PT (14±3; p=0.001) and to MT (14±6; p=0.043). Insertion time using LFT via I-gel was also significantly shorter compared with MT (12±3 vs. 16±8; p=0.0032) and with PT (12±3 vs. 19±10; p<0.001). There was no difference in the attempts needed for intubation using the different tubes in the both roup. Intubation time with PT was significantly shorter via LFD compared to I-Gel (p=0.02). The overall rate of successful intubation via LFD was significantly higher compared to I-Gel with PT, and similar between MT and LFT.
Conclusion(s): Significantly shorter insertion times suggest that the I-Gelâ may be advantageous to ensure oxygenation. For blind intubation, however, the LMA FastrachTM proved to be superior.
