İnfantlarda i-Gel ve Ambu Aura-i Kullanımın Laringofaringeal Mukoza Üzerindeki Etkisinin Flexible Bronkoskopi ile Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Supraglottik havayolu cihazları, pediatrik hastalarda cerrahide sıklıkla tercih edilmektedir. i-gel LMA ve Ambu Aura-i LMA, yeni nesil supraglottik havayolu cihazlarıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bebeklerde i-gel ve Ambu Aura-i'ye bağlı havayolu travması ve postoperatif komplikasyonları karşılaştırmaktır. Materyal ve metod: Çalışmada minör cerrahi uygulanan, ASA I hastalar (n=40) iki gruba ayrıldı. Standart anestezi sonrası bir gruba i-gel, diğerine Ambu Aura-i yerleştirildi. Ameliyat sonunda fleksibl bronkoskopi yapıldı. Laringofaringeal yapılarda mukozal hasar ve postoperatif komplikasyonlar karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında yaş ve vücut ağırlık ortalamaları, LMA sayısı, komplikasyon dağılımı, anestezi süresi ve ortalama ameliyat süresi açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p=0.930, p=0.743, p=0.705, p=0.151, p =0.894, p=0.710). Fleksibl bronkoskopi görünümüne göre derecelendirme açısından iki grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark yoktu (p=0.112, p=0.201, p=0.632). Sonuç: Bebeklerde i-gel ve Ambu Aura-i'ye bağlı laringofaringeal mukozal hasar ve postoperatif hava yolu komplikasyonlarında fark yoktur. Bu yaş grubunda her iki cihaz da etkin ve güvenli bir şekilde kullanılabilir.

Keywords

• Laringeal maske havayolu
• i-gel
• Ambu Aura-i
• Fleksibl bronkoskopi
• Laringofaringeal hasar
• İnfant

Comparison of the Effect of i-Gel ™ and AMBU Aura-i ™ Use on Laryngopharyngeal Mucosa with Flexible Bronchoscopy in Infants

Abstract

Background: Supraglottic airway devices are frequently preferred in surgical surgery for pediatric patients. I-gel LMA and Ambu Aura-i LMA are the new generation supraglottic airway devices. This study aimed to compare airway trauma and postoperative complications due to i-gel and Ambu Aura-i in infants. Materials and Methods: In the study, patients were divided into two groups that performed minor surgery ASA I and 40 infants. After standard anesthesia, i-gel was placed into one group, and Ambu Aura-i was placed into another. Flexible bronchoscopy was performed at the end of the surgery. Mucosal damage and postoperative complications in laryngopharyngeal structures were compared. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of age and body weight averages, LMA size, complication distribution, duration of anesthesia, and mean duration of surgery (p=0.930, p=0.743, p=0.705, p=0.151, p=0.894, p=0.710). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding grading according to the flexible bronchoscopy appearance (p=0.112, p=0.201, p=0.632). Conclusions: There is no difference in laryngopharyngeal mucosal damage and postoperative airway complicati-ons due to i-gel and Ambu Aura-i in infants. Both devices can be used effectively and safely in this age group.

Keywords

• Laryngeal Mask Airway
• i-gel
• Ambu Aura-i
• Flexible bronchoscopy
• Laryngopharyngeal damage
• Infant

References

1. 1. Goyal R. Small is the new big: An overview of newer sup-raglottic airways for children. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharma-col. 2015;31:440-449.
2. 2. Gupta S, Dogra N, Chauhan K. Comparison of i-gel™ and Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ in Different Head and Neck Positions in Spontaneously Breathing Pediatric Po-pulation. Anesth Essays Res. 2017;11:647-650.
3. 3. Darlong V, Biyani G, Baidya DK, et al. Comparison of air-Q and Ambu Aura-i for controlled ventilation in infants: a randomized controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25:795-800.
4. 4. Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, et al. The I-gel, a single-use supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in child-ren. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:376-379.
5. 5. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, et al. A randomi-zed trial comparing the Ambu ® Aura-i ™ with the air-Q ™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intu-bation in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22:1197-1204.
6. 6. Yahaya Z, Teoh WH, Dintan NA, et al. The AMBU® Aura-i™ Laryngeal Mask and LMA Supreme™: A Randomized Trial of Clinical Performance and Fibreoptic Positioning in Un-paralysed, Anaesthetised Patients by Novices. Anesthe-siol Res Pract. 2016;2016:4717061.
7. 7. Lee YC, Yoon KS, Park SY, et al. A comparison of i-gel™ and Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ during general anest-hesia in infants. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71:37-42.
8. 8. Kim MS, Oh JT, Min JY, et al. A randomised comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in in-fants. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:362-367.

9. 9. Pant D, Koul A, Sharma B, et al. A comparative study of laryngeal mask airway size 1 vs. i-gel size 1 in infants un-dergoing daycare procedures. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25:386–391.
10. 10. Beringer RM, Kelly F, Cook TM, et al. A cohort evaluation of the paediatric i-gel(™) airway during anaesthesia in 120 children. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:1121-1126.
11. 11. Chauhan G, Nayar P, Seth A, et al. Comparison of clinical performance of the I-gel with LMA proseal. J Anaesthe-siol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29:56-60.
12. 12. Gatward JJ, Cook TM, Seller C, et al. Evaluation of the size 4 i‐gel airway in one hundred non‐paralysed patients. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:1124–1130.
13. 13. Kleine-Brueggeney M, Gottfried A, Nabecker S, et al. Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study. MC Anesthesiol. 2017;17:119.
14. 14. Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Luepold B, et al. Per-formance of the pediatric-sized i-gel compared with the Ambu Aura Once laryngeal mask in anesthetized and ven-tilated children. Anesthesiology. 2011;115:102-110.