A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
<h4>Background and objective</h4>Conflicting results were found between the I-gel™ and the LMA-Supreme™ during anesthesia, so we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness and safety of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-Supreme™during anesthesia.&l...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2013-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23951266/pdf/?tool=EBI |
id |
doaj-68213132b7ff499483b2155bffedf8af |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-68213132b7ff499483b2155bffedf8af2021-03-03T23:00:50ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032013-01-0188e7191010.1371/journal.pone.0071910A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Xiaoguang ChenJinghua JiaoXuefeng CongLei LiuXiaomei Wu<h4>Background and objective</h4>Conflicting results were found between the I-gel™ and the LMA-Supreme™ during anesthesia, so we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness and safety of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-Supreme™during anesthesia.<h4>Methods</h4>A comprehensive search was conducted using Pubmed, EMbase, ISI Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, China Journal Full-text Database, Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese Scientific Journals Full-text Database, CMA Digital Periodicals, and Google scholar to find RCTs that compare the LMA-S™ with the i-gel™during anesthesia. Two reviewers independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the methodological qualities and evidence levels. Data were analyzed by RevMan 5.0 and comprehensive meta-analysis software.<h4>Results</h4>Ten RCTs were included. There were no significant differences in oropharyngeal leak pressures (mean difference [MD] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.10 2.53), device placement time (MD -1.3, 95%CI -4.07 1.44), first attempt insertion success (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% CI 0.9 1.14), grade 3 and 4 fiberoptic view (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.65 1.21), and blood on removal (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.32 1.22) between the i-gel™ and the LMA-Supreme™, respectively. However, the LMA-Supreme™was associated with easier gastric tube insertion (RR 1.17, 95%CI 1.07 1.29), and more sore throat (RR 2.56, 95%CI 1.60 4.12) than the i-gel™ group.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The LMA-Supreme™ and i-gel™ were similarly successful and rapidly inserted. However, the LMA-Supreme™ was shown to be easier for gastric tube insertion and associated with more sore throat compared with the i-gel™.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23951266/pdf/?tool=EBI |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Xiaoguang Chen Jinghua Jiao Xuefeng Cong Lei Liu Xiaomei Wu |
spellingShingle |
Xiaoguang Chen Jinghua Jiao Xuefeng Cong Lei Liu Xiaomei Wu A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Xiaoguang Chen Jinghua Jiao Xuefeng Cong Lei Liu Xiaomei Wu |
author_sort |
Xiaoguang Chen |
title |
A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. |
title_short |
A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. |
title_full |
A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. |
title_fullStr |
A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. |
title_full_unstemmed |
A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. |
title_sort |
comparison of the performance of the i-gel™ vs. the lma-s™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2013-01-01 |
description |
<h4>Background and objective</h4>Conflicting results were found between the I-gel™ and the LMA-Supreme™ during anesthesia, so we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness and safety of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-Supreme™during anesthesia.<h4>Methods</h4>A comprehensive search was conducted using Pubmed, EMbase, ISI Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, China Journal Full-text Database, Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese Scientific Journals Full-text Database, CMA Digital Periodicals, and Google scholar to find RCTs that compare the LMA-S™ with the i-gel™during anesthesia. Two reviewers independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the methodological qualities and evidence levels. Data were analyzed by RevMan 5.0 and comprehensive meta-analysis software.<h4>Results</h4>Ten RCTs were included. There were no significant differences in oropharyngeal leak pressures (mean difference [MD] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.10 2.53), device placement time (MD -1.3, 95%CI -4.07 1.44), first attempt insertion success (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% CI 0.9 1.14), grade 3 and 4 fiberoptic view (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.65 1.21), and blood on removal (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.32 1.22) between the i-gel™ and the LMA-Supreme™, respectively. However, the LMA-Supreme™was associated with easier gastric tube insertion (RR 1.17, 95%CI 1.07 1.29), and more sore throat (RR 2.56, 95%CI 1.60 4.12) than the i-gel™ group.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The LMA-Supreme™ and i-gel™ were similarly successful and rapidly inserted. However, the LMA-Supreme™ was shown to be easier for gastric tube insertion and associated with more sore throat compared with the i-gel™. |
url |
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23951266/pdf/?tool=EBI |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT xiaoguangchen acomparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT jinghuajiao acomparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT xuefengcong acomparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT leiliu acomparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT xiaomeiwu acomparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT xiaoguangchen comparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT jinghuajiao comparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT xuefengcong comparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT leiliu comparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT xiaomeiwu comparisonoftheperformanceoftheigelvsthelmasduringanesthesiaametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials |
_version_ |
1714812009997926400 |