i-Gel Supraglottic Airway for Inexperienced Anesthesia Residents

Mariko Senda, Tokujiro Uchida, Hiroyuki Kobinata, Koichi Nakazawa, Koshi Makita

Department of Anesthesiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.

DOI: 10.4236/ojanes.2013.32017                

Abstract

i-gel (Intersurgical Ltd., Wokingham, UK) is a new supraglottic airway device with a cuff made of thermoplastic elastomer gel. We retrospectively studied easiness of insertion and troubles in ventilation when this device was used by less experienced anesthesiologists. Consecutive eleven cases undergoing surgery under general anesthesia were studied. i-gel was successfully inserted in 7 cases (63%) at the first attempt, 2 cases at the second attempt without changing the size. In one case, the size was changed at the second attempt, which resulted in the successful insertion. There was one case of failed insertion even at the second attempt. Fiberoptic observation of the glottis showed direct contact of the cuff to the arytenoids cartilage in cases with successful insertion, however, spastic glottis, defined as contact of vocal cords was observed in 4 cases, and down-folding of the epiglottis was observed in 2 cases. During maintenance of anesthesia, ventilation trouble was observed in 3 cases. We conclude that i-gel should only be used with sufficient knowledge, preparations, skills or support from experienced physician to solve problems related to the safe use of supraglottic airway devices.

Keywords

Supraglottic Airway Device; i-Gel; Airway Management

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	J. J. Gatward, T. M. Cook, C. Seller, J. Handel, T. Simpson, V. Vanek and F. Kelly, “Evaluation of the Size 4 i-Gel Airway in One Hundred Non-Paralysed Patients,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 63, No. 10, 2008, pp. 1124-1130. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05561.x
[2]	W. J. Shin, Y. S. Cheong, H. S. Yang and T. Nishiyama, “The Supraglottic Airway i-Gel in Comparison with ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway and Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway in Anaesthetized Patients,” European Journal of Anaesthesiology, Vol. 27, No. 7, 2010, pp. 598-601. doi:10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283340a81
[3]	L. G. Theiler, M. Kleine-Brueggeney, D. Kaiser, N. Urwyler, C. Luyet, A. Vogt, R. Greif and M. M. Unibe, “Crossover Comparison of the Laryngeal Mask Supreme and the i-Gel in Simulated Difficult Airway Scenario in Anesthetized Patients,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 111, No. 1, 2009, pp. 55-62. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181a4c6b9
[4]	N. M. Wharton, B. Gibbison, D. A. Gabbott, G. M. Haslam, N. Muchatuta and T. M. Cook, “i-Gel Insertion by Novices in Manikins and Patients,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 63, No. 9, 2008, pp. 991-995. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05542.x
[5]	M. G. Tan, E. R. Chin, C. S. Kong, Y. H. Chan and P. C. Ip-Yam, “Comparison of the Re-Usable LMA Classic and Two Single-Use Laryngeal Masks (LMA Unique and SoftSeal) in Airway Management by Novice Personnel,” Anaesth Intensive Care, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2005, pp. 739-743.
[6]	N. S. Klaver, K. Kuizenga, A. Ballast and V. Fidler, “A Comparison of the Clinical Use of the Laryngeal Tube S and the ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway by First-Month Anaesthesia Residents in Anaesthetised Patients,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 62, No. 7, 2007, pp. 723-727. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05073.x