A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the i‐gel® vs laryngeal mask airway in children. (28th May 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Choi, G. J.; Kang, H.; Baek, C. W.; Jung, Y. H.; Woo, Y. C.; Cha, Y. J.
• Is Part Of: Anaesthesia. Volume 69:Number 11(2014:Nov.)
• Page Start: 1258
• Page End: 1265
• Publication Date: 2014-05-28
• Subjects: Anesthesia -- Periodicals; 617.96
• DOI: 10.1111/anae.12746
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-2409

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="anae12746-abs-0001"> <title>Summary</title> <p>We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials of the i‐gel^® vs different types of laryngeal mask airway in children. We included nine studies. There was no evidence for differences in: rate of insertion at first attempt; insertion time; ease of insertion; or gastric tube insertion. The mean (95% CI) oropharyngeal leak pressure was 3.29 (2.25–4.34) cmH₂O higher with the i‐gel, p &lt; 0.00001. The relative rate (95% CI) of a good fibreoptic view through the i‐gel was 1.10 (1.01–1.19), p = 0.02. There were no significant differences in the rates of complications, except for blood on the airway, relative rate with the i‐gel 0.46 (0.23–0.91), p = 0.02. We concluded that the clinical performance of the i‐gel and LMA was similar, except for three outcomes that favoured the i‐gel.</p> </abstract>