Comparison of the efficacies of I-gel™ and LMA-ProSeal™ for airway management in pediatric patients

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorTokgoz, Orhan
dc.contributor.authorTufek, Adnan
dc.contributor.authorBeyaz, Serbulent Gokhan
dc.contributor.authorYuksel, Mustafa Ugur
dc.contributor.authorCelik, Feyzi
dc.contributor.authorAycan, Ilker Onguc
dc.contributor.authorGuzel, Abdulmenap
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T17:21:08Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T17:21:08Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAim: The present study was performed to compare the performance of I-gel (TM) with LMA-ProSeal (TM) in children undergoing anesthesia. Materials and methods: A total of 185 patients who were scheduled for elective surgery in Dicle University's hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups: the I-gel (TM) group (Group-I, n = 95) and the p-LMA (TM) group (Group-P, n = 90). Airway leakage pressure, insertion time, fiberoptic laryngeal image scores, ease of insertion, and possible complications were compared between these groups. Results: The airway leakage pressure of Group-I was significantly higher than that of Group-P (means +/- SD: 28 +/- 5 vs. 20 +/- 4 cmH(2)O, P < 0.01). The duration of supraglottic airway device insertion was shorter in Group-I than Group-P (19 +/- 4 vs. 28 +/- 5 s, P < 0.01). The overall success rate was 95% for Group-I and 94% for Group-P (P = 0.10). The I-gel provided a better view of the glottis than the p-LMA (93% of cases in Group-I and 68% of cases in Group-P, P = 0.03). There were no significant differences with regard to ease of insertion (P = 0.97). Conclusion: This study suggested that I-gel is an effective and safe alternative supraglottic airway device for use in children.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3906/sag-1206-30
dc.identifier.endpage213en_US
dc.identifier.issn1300-0144
dc.identifier.issn1303-6165
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84875072482
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage208en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1206-30
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/19381
dc.identifier.volume43en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000321227500005
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTubitak Scientific & Technological Research Council Turkeyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofTurkish Journal of Medical Sciences
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectI-Gel (Tm)en_US
dc.subjectLma-Proseal (Tm)en_US
dc.subjectSupraglottic Airway Deviceen_US
dc.titleComparison of the efficacies of I-gel™ and LMA-ProSeal™ for airway management in pediatric patientsen_US
dc.titleComparison of the efficacies of I-gel™ and LMA-ProSeal™ for airway management in pediatric patients
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu