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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Xiaoguang Chen, Jinghua Jiao, Xuefeng Cong, Lei Liu, Xiaomei Wu
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