Comparison of i-gel®, Ambu® AuraGain™, Baska Mask, LMA® Protector™ for airway management of obese surgical patients - A randomised comparative study.

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-17 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_755_24
Rajesh Raman, Apoorva Gupta, Rati Prabha, Shefali Gautam, Akshay Anand
{"title":"Comparison of i-gel®, Ambu® AuraGain™, Baska Mask, LMA® Protector™ for airway management of obese surgical patients - A randomised comparative study.","authors":"Rajesh Raman, Apoorva Gupta, Rati Prabha, Shefali Gautam, Akshay Anand","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_755_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>A few trials have studied the use of supraglottic airway devices (SADs) for obese patients. This trial aimed to compare four SADs: I-gel, Ambu AuraGain, Baska mask, and Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Protector for airway management of obese patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This parallel-group, single-blind, comparative randomised study included 154 obese patients aged between 18 and 60 years who were planned for elective surgery. They were randomly allocated one of the above four SADs for airway management. Each group had 38 patients. The allocated SAD was inserted after induction of anaesthesia. oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was the primary outcome. Data were analysed using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, or χ<sup>2</sup> test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline data of the patients were comparable. Mean OLP was highest with the Baska mask and lowest with the LMA Protector [32.97 (standard deviation (SD): 1.30) (95% confidence interval (CI): 32.54, 33.40] vs 30.08 (SD: 1.51) (95% CI: 29.58, 30.58) cm H<sub>2</sub>O). The mean leak fraction was highest with the Baska mask and lowest with Ambu AuraGain (6.88 (SD: 1.33) (95% CI: 6.44, 7.31) vs 6.08 (SD: 1.18) (95% CI: 5.69, 6.47)). The mean time taken to insert the SAD was shortest with I-gel and longest with Ambu AuraGain (18.58 (SD: 1.97) (95% CI: 17.93, 19.23) vs 29.11 (SD: 2.50) (95% CI: 28.28, 29.93) sec). Heart rate, SAD placement success rate, fibreoptic view of the glottis, blood pressure, and side effects were comparable amongst the devices.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For obese patients undergoing elective surgery, the Baska mask has the highest OLP, but I-gel, Ambu AuraGain, and LMA Protector are also acceptable choices.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"69 3","pages":"289-295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11952165/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_755_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: A few trials have studied the use of supraglottic airway devices (SADs) for obese patients. This trial aimed to compare four SADs: I-gel, Ambu AuraGain, Baska mask, and Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Protector for airway management of obese patients.

Methods: This parallel-group, single-blind, comparative randomised study included 154 obese patients aged between 18 and 60 years who were planned for elective surgery. They were randomly allocated one of the above four SADs for airway management. Each group had 38 patients. The allocated SAD was inserted after induction of anaesthesia. oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was the primary outcome. Data were analysed using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, or χ2 test.

Results: Baseline data of the patients were comparable. Mean OLP was highest with the Baska mask and lowest with the LMA Protector [32.97 (standard deviation (SD): 1.30) (95% confidence interval (CI): 32.54, 33.40] vs 30.08 (SD: 1.51) (95% CI: 29.58, 30.58) cm H2O). The mean leak fraction was highest with the Baska mask and lowest with Ambu AuraGain (6.88 (SD: 1.33) (95% CI: 6.44, 7.31) vs 6.08 (SD: 1.18) (95% CI: 5.69, 6.47)). The mean time taken to insert the SAD was shortest with I-gel and longest with Ambu AuraGain (18.58 (SD: 1.97) (95% CI: 17.93, 19.23) vs 29.11 (SD: 2.50) (95% CI: 28.28, 29.93) sec). Heart rate, SAD placement success rate, fibreoptic view of the glottis, blood pressure, and side effects were comparable amongst the devices.

Conclusion: For obese patients undergoing elective surgery, the Baska mask has the highest OLP, but I-gel, Ambu AuraGain, and LMA Protector are also acceptable choices.

i-gel®、Ambu®AuraGain™、Baska Mask、LMA®Protector™用于肥胖外科患者气道管理的比较——一项随机对照研究
背景和目的:一些试验研究了肥胖患者使用声门上气道装置(SADs)。本试验旨在比较四种SADs: I-gel、Ambu AuraGain、Baska面罩和喉罩气道(LMA)保护器在肥胖患者气道管理中的应用。方法:这项平行组、单盲、比较随机研究纳入了154例年龄在18岁至60岁之间计划择期手术的肥胖患者。随机分配上述四种sad中的一种用于气道管理。每组38例。麻醉诱导后插入分配的SAD。口咽漏压(OLP)是主要预后指标。数据分析采用方差分析、Kruskal-Wallis检验或χ2检验。结果:两组患者的基线数据具有可比性。Baska面罩的平均OLP最高,LMA保护器的平均OLP最低[32.97(标准差(SD): 1.30)(95%可信区间(CI): 32.54, 33.40] vs 30.08 (SD: 1.51) (95% CI: 29.58, 30.58) cm H2O)。Baska面罩的平均泄漏率最高,Ambu AuraGain最低(6.88 (SD: 1.33) (95% CI: 6.44, 7.31) vs 6.08 (SD: 1.18) (95% CI: 5.69, 6.47))。I-gel插入SAD的平均时间最短,Ambu AuraGain的平均时间最长(18.58 (SD: 1.97) (95% CI: 17.93, 19.23) vs 29.11 (SD: 2.50) (95% CI: 28.28, 29.93)秒)。心率、SAD放置成功率、声门纤维视点、血压和副作用在两种装置中是相似的。结论:对于择期手术的肥胖患者,Baska口罩的OLP最高,但I-gel、Ambu AuraGain、LMA Protector也是可接受的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信