|
Previous article 
Next article |
|
|
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018 | Volume
: 12
| Issue : 4 | Page : 535-539
Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients
Rati Prabha1, Rajesh Raman2, Mohammad Parvez Khan2, Dinesh Kaushal2, Ahsan Khaliq Siddiqui2, Haider Abbas3
1 Department of Cardiac Anesthesia, LPS Institute of Cardiology, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Anesthesiology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of Emergency Medicine, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Rajesh Raman
Department of Anesthesiology, King George's Medical University, Chowk, Lucknow - 226 003, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_79_18
| Date of Web Publication | 4-Oct-2018 |
|
|
Context: I-gel is a second-generation supraglottic airway device. Despite several studies on i-gel, there are very few studies on the use of i-gel in obese patients.
Aims: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical performance of i-gel between obese and nonobese patients.
Settings and Design: Prospective, controlled, nonrandomized, hospital-based study.
Subjects and Methods: After obtaining informed consent, patients were divided into two groups of 16 patients each: group O consisted of patients with body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 and Group C consisted of patients with BMI 18.5–29.9 kg/m2. I-gel was inserted after induction of anesthesia and muscle relaxation. Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) (primary outcome variable), leak fraction, time taken to insert the device, ease of insertion, fiberoptic view of glottis through i-gel's airway tube, and adverse effects were recorded.
Statistical Analysis Used: Data were analyzed using SPSS 20. Continuous, ordinal, and categorical variables were analyzed using students t-test, Mann–Whitney U–test, and Fischer's exact test, respectively.
Results: OLP was slightly higher in Group O (25.38 ± 4.79 cm H2O) but was not statistically different than Group C (27.38 ± 4.38 cm H2O). Other parameters except weight and BMI (which were higher in Group O) were statistically similar in both groups. There was no statistical difference in side effects.
Conclusions: We concluded that i-gel is as effective in obese patients as in nonobese patients when used for securing the airway for surgical procedures.
Keywords: Airway management; airway management; bronchoscope; laryngeal masks; obesity
How to cite this article:
Prabha R, Raman R, Khan MP, Kaushal D, Siddiqui AK, Abbas H. Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients. Saudi J Anaesth 2018;12:535-9 |
How to cite this URL:
Prabha R, Raman R, Khan MP, Kaushal D, Siddiqui AK, Abbas H. Comparison of I-gel for general anesthesia in obese and nonobese patients. Saudi J Anaesth [serial online] 2018 [cited 2023 Mar 23];12:535-9. Available from: https://www.saudija.org/text.asp?2018/12/4/535/242669 |
| Introduction | |  |
I-gel is well known for its simplicity, ease of insertion and low complication rate; and has been studied by several authors.[1],[2],[3],[4] It has high oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and a gastric channel which reduces the risk of reflux and regurgitation. I-gel has been successfully inserted in 100% patients by inexperienced users.[4],[5] Komayama et al. used this device to secure airway in an obese patient undergoing awake craniotomy.[6] I-gel and laryngeal mask airway unique was compared in obese patients by Weber et al.[7] They concluded that this device can be used as an alternative to laryngeal mask airway in obese patients.
However, there is no prospective controlled study comparing the use of i-gel in obese versus nonobese patients. This trial was devised with an objective to study the clinical performance of i-gel in obese patients and compare it with nonobese patients.
| Subjects and Methods | | |
This study was done at a tertiary care hospital, after obtaining approval from Institute Ethics Committee. It was registered with Clinical Trials Registry-India under CTRI/2017/03/008059. A written informed consent was taken from all the participating subjects. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I–III patients of the age group of 18–60 years, scheduled to undergo elective surgery of duration <2 h under general anesthesia were included in this study. Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, cardiovascular or respiratory disease, pregnancy, mouth opening <3 cm, body mass index (BMI) ≥40, planned for cardiothoracic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, or head and neck surgery were excluded from the study.
Patients were divided into two groups. Group C consisted of patients with BMI 18.5–29.9 kg/m 2. Group O consisted of patients with BMI 30.0 kg/m 2 or more. After application of standard anesthetic monitors, induction of anesthesia was carried out with intravenous fentanyl (2 μg/kg), titrated dose of propofol (1.5–3 mg/kg), and vecuronium (0.12 mg/kg). After induction of anesthesia and adequate muscle relaxation, appropriate sized i-gel was inserted according to manufacturer's recommendations. Correct placement was defined as visible chest movement with ventilation, SpO2>95%, and square wave capnogram. In case of improper placement, minor manipulations (changing the depth of insertion, extension or flexion of the head, jaw thrust) were done to achieve optimal positioning before removing and reinserting the device one more time, followed by manipulation, if needed. If placement was still not satisfactory, i-gel was removed, and the patient was intubated with endotracheal tube. All devices were placed by anesthetists having >3 years of experience in airway management with i-gel. After successful placement of i-gel, patients were ventilated with 7 ml/kg of tidal volume. Anesthesia was maintained with oxygen, sevoflurane, nitrous oxide mixture with intravenous vecuronium, and fentanyl. At the end of surgery, muscle relaxation was reversed, and the device was removed.
Insertion time (time elapsed between anesthesiologist first picking up the i-gel and correct i-gel placement), number of insertion attempts and ease of insertion (on following scale:[1] successful placement in the first attempt;[2] placement in the first attempt but with resistance;[3] placement required two attempts; and [4] failed placement) were recorded. OLP was measured by closing the adjustable pressure limiting valve of the circle breathing system and noting the pressure at which leak developed (detected by a stethoscope placed just lateral to thyroid cartilage) at fresh gas flow of 3 L/min. A maximum airway pressure of 40 cm H2O was allowed during the test. The best view of larynx obtained with fiberoptic bronchoscope (recorded as fiberoptic view [FOV]) inserted through the airway tube of i-gel was graded and recorded as: (1) full view of glottis obtained; (2) glottis visible partially; (3) glottis not visible but only epiglottis visible; and (4) no recognizable laryngeal structures visible. Leak fraction (LF) was recorded and defined as the difference between inspiratory and expiratory tidal volumes and divided by inspiratory tidal volume. Side effects such as sore throat, gastric distension, blood on device, and dysphonia were also recorded.
Primary outcome variable of this study was OLP while secondary outcome variables were insertion time, number of insertion attempts, ease of insertion, FOV, and side effects.
A sample size of 16 patients was required in each group to detect a clinically important difference of 5 cm H2O with a standard deviation of 5 cm H2O in OLP using a two-sided t-test for two independent groups. The power of our study was 80% and two-sided alpha error was 5%. Parametric continuous variables (age, weight, height, BMI, duration of surgery, OLP, LF, and time to insert i-gel) were analyzed using Student's t-test. Fischer's exact test was used to analyze categorical variables (sex, type of surgery, and side effects). Mann–Whitney U-test was used to analyze ordinal variables (ASA grade, number of attempts, FOV grade, and ease of insertion). P < 0.05 was considered significant for all the statistical tests. All analyses were performed with SPSS version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) for windows.
| Results | | |
[Figure 1] depicts the flow of participants through the trial. Baseline and demographic characteristics are depicted in [Table 1]. Analysis revealed that baseline and demographic characteristics were similar between the groups except for weight and BMI which was significantly higher in Group O. [Table 2] shows comparison of clinical performance of i-gel in the two groups. Insertion of i-gel and ventilation was successful in all the patients. OLP of pressure limit 40 cm H2O was not achieved in any patient. OLP, LF, time taken to insert i-gel, ease of insertion, number of attempts taken, and FOV in the two groups were statistically similar. The incidence of side effects occurring during the study was statistically similar and is shown in [Table 3]. | Table 2: Comparison of clinical performance of i-gel between the two groups (n=16)
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
In this trial, we studied the role of i-gel in airway management of obese patients and compared its clinical performance with that of nonobese patients. We found that indices regarding i-gel placement, ventilation using i-gel and FOVs were similar between the obese and nonobese patients.
There is very little scientific evidence on the use of i-gel in obese population.[2],[8],[9],[10] In a prospective randomized study, Weber et al. compared laryngeal mask airway unique and i-gel in mild to moderately obese patients.[7] It was found that i-gel had significantly higher OLP than LMA unique. Theiler et al. conducted a prospective observational multicenter trial to study success rates, airway leak pressure and risk factors for i-gel failure.[11] They observed that male sex, impaired mandibular subluxation, poor dentition, and older age were associated with failed i-gel insertion and use. Obesity was not associated with i-gel failure. However, other details about insertion and ventilation characteristics were not analyzed in this study.
Primary outcome variable of our study was OLP, which is one of the most important factors in the evaluation of a supraglottic device performance, especially when used for positive pressure ventilation. Mean OLP was slightly higher in obese patients compared to nonobese patients (28.7 vs. 25.8 cm H2O). There are several trials studying OLP of i-gel under various conditions. Use of muscle relaxants, as we did in our study, decreases the tone of laryngeal and pharyngeal muscles and reduces the OLP of supraglottic airway (SGA) devices.[12] Studies using muscle relaxation in their study protocol have found OLP similar to our study.[2],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] OLP depends on the seal between cuff of SGA, laryngeal inlet, and the surrounding soft tissues of perilaryngeal area.[12] The anatomically shaped and pliable nature of i-gel's cuff may be able to conform to the patients' laryngeal anatomy well despite patients' excess perilaryngeal soft tissue. Excess perilaryngeal soft-tissues pushing i-gel's cuff more effectively against the laryngeal inlet may lead to better seal between the cuff of i-gel and laryngeal inlet in obese patients. This may explain the observation of study by Weber et al. in which the OLP was more in patients with moderate obesity than the patient with mild obesity.[7] Theiler et al. also found in their prospective study that BMI was not related to i-gel failure. We could not do any subgroup analysis in our study.[11]
LF was slightly higher in obese patients as compared to nonobese patients, but the difference was not statistically significant. Anesthetized obese patients have higher airway resistance and lower lung compliance than nonobese patients.[10],[18] Given similar OLP, this may translate to higher LF in obese patients when ventilating through i-gel at same tidal volumes as compared to nonobese patients. However, our study was not adequately powered to detect this difference. Equivalent OLP and LF achieved in obese and nonobese patients indicate that i-gel is suitable for positive pressure ventilation in obese patients also.
In our study, indices regarding insertion of i-gel: time taken to insert, ease of insertion, and number of attempts taken needed were similar in both groups. I-gel was designed to have insertion time of <5 s.[19] Design features including the absence of inflatable cuff, semi-rigid flattened stem, and insertion depth gauge may contribute to rapid and easy placement of i-gel.[5],[20] Trials investigating insertion characteristics of I-gel have consistently found it easy to insert, even with novice users. Successful insertion rates are generally higher than 80% in the first attempt and increase to >90% on subsequent attempts.[2],[5],[11],[13],[21] Theiler et al. in found in their study that overall success rate of i-gel insertion was 96%.[11] In this aspect, findings of our study are similar to those of previous studies.
FOV was also similar in both groups with both having median grade FOV as one and glottis was visible in 93.75% in both groups, indicating excellent anatomical position of i-gel cuff in relation to the laryngeal inlet in both obese and nonobese patients.[13],[22],[23] As different grading of FOV was used by different studies, comparison with previous studies is difficult. However, FOV through i-gel was good (glottis at least partially visible) in >90% of patients in these studies. Studies evaluating the suitability of i-gel as conduit for fiberoptic-guided intubation have concluded that i-gel is an excellent device for this purpose.[24],[25],[26],[27] Excellent visibility of the glottis in obese patients suggests that i-gel may be used as a conduit for fiberoptic-guided endotracheal intubation in obese patients also.
Adverse events encountered during our study were minor, and the incidence was statistically similar in both groups. However, the present study was not enough powered to detect the differences in secondary outcome variables.
One of the limitations of this study was that we did not include patients with morbid obesity in our study; hence, the results of this study may not be applicable to them. Furthermore, it was not possible for us to use randomization or blinding in the study. All patients in our study had a duration of surgery <2 h. Application of the results of our study to patients undergoing surgery of longer duration may not be appropriate.
| Conclusions | | |
Our study showed that OLP is similar in obese and nonobese patients when i-gel is used for securing the airway. However, further studies, especially regarding LF, ease of use, and adverse effects are needed to establish the equivalency of i-gel in obese and nonobese patients.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Ekinci O, Abitagaoglu S, Turan G, Sivrikaya Z, Bosna G, Özgultekin A, et al. The comparison of ProSeal and I-gel laryngeal mask airways in anesthetized adult patients under controlled ventilation. Saudi Med J 2015;36:885.  |
| 2. | Park SK, Choi GJ, Choi YS, Ahn EJ, Kang H. Comparison of the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal during general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0119469. |
| 3. | Pournajafian A, Alimian M, Rokhtabnak F, Ghodraty M, Mojri M. Success rate of airway devices insertion: Laryngeal mask airway versus supraglottic gel device. Anesth Pain Med 2015;5:e22068. |
| 4. | Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, Cros AM. The I-gel, a single-use supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: An observational study in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009;53:376-9. |
| 5. | Wharton NM, Gibbison B, Gabbott DA, Haslam GM, Muchatuta N, Cook TM, et al. I-gel insertion by novices in manikins and patients. Anaesthesia 2008;63:991-5. |
| 6. | Komayama N, Kamata K, Maruyama T, Nitta M, Muragaki Y, Ozaki M, et al. Perioperative management of an obese patient complicated with sleep apnea syndrome (SAS) undergoing awake craniotomy. Masui 2014;63:1117-21. |
| 7. | Weber U, Oguz R, Potura LA, Kimberger O, Kober A, Tschernko E, et al. Comparison of the i-gel and the LMA-unique laryngeal mask airway in patients with mild to moderate obesity during elective short-term surgery. Anaesthesia 2011;66:481-7. |
| 8. | de Montblanc J, Ruscio L, Mazoit JX, Benhamou D. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel(®) vs. laryngeal mask airway in adults. Anaesthesia 2014;69:1151-62. |
| 9. | Shin HW, Yoo HN, Bae GE, Chang JC, Park MK, You HS, et al. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA proSeal™ and i-gel® in adults: Meta-analysis and systematic review. J Int Med Res 2016;44:405-18. |
| 10. | Nicholson A, Cook TM, Smith AF, Lewis SR, Reed SS. Supraglottic airway devices versus tracheal intubation for airway management during general anaesthesia in obese patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;9:CD010105. |
| 11. | Theiler L, Gutzmann M, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Urwyler N, Kaempfen B, Greif R, et al. I-gel™ supraglottic airway in clinical practice: A prospective observational multicentre study. Br J Anaesth 2012;109:990-5. |
| 12. | Dhanda A, Singh S, Bhalotra AR, Chavali S. Clinical comparison of I-gel supraglottic airway device and cuffed endotracheal tube for pressure-controlled ventilation during routine surgical procedures. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2017;45:270-6. |
| 13. | Chauhan G, Nayar P, Seth A, Gupta K, Panwar M, Agrawal N, et al. Comparison of clinical performance of the I-gel with LMA proseal. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013;29:56-60. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 14. | Kim MH, Lee JH, Choi YS, Park S, Shin S. Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme and the i-gel in paralysed elderly patients: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017 Aug 28. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000700. [Epub ahead of print]. |
| 15. | Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Baek SJ, Kim KH. Comparison of the proseal LMA and intersurgical I-gel during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012;63:510-4. |
| 16. | Shi YB, Zuo MZ, Du XH, Yu Z. Comparison of the efficacy of different types of laryngeal mask airways in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2013;93:1978-80. |
| 17. | Shin WJ, Cheong YS, Yang HS, Nishiyama T. The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010;27:598-601. |
| 18. | Members of the Working Party, Nightingale CE, Margarson MP, Shearer E, Redman JW, Lucas DN, et al. Peri-operative management of the obese surgical patient 2015: Association of anaesthetists of great Britain and Ireland society for obesity and bariatric anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2015;70:859-76. |
| 19. | Bamgbade OA, Macnab WR, Khalaf WM. Evaluation of the i-gel airway in 300 patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2008;25:865-6. |
| 20. | Beringer RM, Kelly F, Cook TM, Nolan J, Hardy R, Simpson T, et al. Acohort evaluation of the paediatric i-gel(™) airway during anaesthesia in 120 children. Anaesthesia 2011;66:1121-6. |
| 21. | Pratheeba N, Ramya GS, Ranjan RV, Remadevi R. Comparison of i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway classic™ in terms of ease of insertion and hemodynamic response: A randomized observational study. Anesth Essays Res 2016;10:521-5. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 22. | Polat R, Aydin GB, Ergil J, Sayin M, Kokulu T, Öztürk İ, et al. Comparison of the i-gel™ and the laryngeal mask airway classic™ in terms of clinical performance. Braz J Anesthesiol 2015;65:343-8. |
| 23. | Russo SG, Cremer S, Galli T, Eich C, Bräuer A, Crozier TA, et al. Randomized comparison of the i-gel™, the LMA supreme™, and the laryngeal tube suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessments in elective patients. BMC Anesthesiol 2012;12:18. |
| 24. | Kleine-Brueggeney M, Theiler L, Urwyler N, Vogt A, Greif R. Randomized trial comparing the i-gel™ and magill tracheal tube with the single-use ILMA™ and ILMA™ tracheal tube for fibreoptic-guided intubation in anaesthetized patients with a predicted difficult airway. Br J Anaesth 2011;107:251-7. |
| 25. | Jagannathan N, Sohn L, Ramsey M, Huang A, Sawardekar A, Sequera-Ramos L, et al. Arandomized comparison between the i-gel™ and the air-Q™ supraglottic airways when used by anesthesiology trainees as conduits for tracheal intubation in children. Can J Anaesth 2015;62:587-94. |
| 26. | de Lloyd L, Hodzovic I, Voisey S, Wilkes AR, Latto IP. Comparison of fibrescope guided intubation via the classic laryngeal mask airway and i-gel in a manikin. Anaesthesia 2010;65:36-43. |
| 27. | de Lloyd LJ, Subash F, Wilkes AR, Hodzovic I. A comparison of fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation through the Ambu ® Aura-i ™, the intubating laryngeal mask airway and the i-gel ™: A manikin study. Anaesthesia 2015;70:591-7. |
[Figure 1]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
|
Search Pubmed for