ArticleSaudi medical journal2015
The comparison of ProSeal and I-gel laryngeal mask airways in anesthetized adult patients under controlled ventilation.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Choice of supraglottic airway devices: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Pooled it
- Contrast of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of I-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ in patients: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of the standard and triple airway maneuvering techniques for i-gel™ placement in patients undergoing elective surgery: a randomized controlled study.Journal of anesthesia · 2020Trial
- Comparison of the Baska mask and the i-gel supraglottic airway devices in patients undergoing elective surgery.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2020Article
- Comparing performance of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and I-gel in anesthetized adult patients.Saudi medical journal · 2015Article
- Airway Management During Diagnostic Laparoscopic Surgery: A Comparison of I-Gel and Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
- I-gel™ May be the Device of Choice for Controlled Ventilation in Patients with Hemophilia Undergoing Abdominal Laparoscopic Surgery.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the insertion time, ease of device insertion, ease of gastric tube insertion, airway leakage pressure, and complications between the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ProSeal (P-LMA) and I-gel (I-gel) groups.
methodsEighty patients with age range 18-65 years who underwent elective surgery were included in the study. The study took place in the operation rooms of Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey from November 2013 to April 2014. Patients were equally randomized into 2 groups; the I-gel group, and the P-LMA group. In both groups, the same specialist inserted the supraglottic airway devices. The insertion time of the devices, difficulty during insertion, difficulty during gastric tube insertion, coverage of airway pressure, and complications were recorded.
resultsThe mean insertion time in the I-gel group was significantly lower than that of the P-LMA group (I-gel: 8±3; P-LMA: 13±5 s). The insertion success rate was higher in the I-gel group (100%, first attempt) than in the P-LMA group (82.5%, first attempt). The gastric tube placement success rate was higher in the I-gel group (92.5%, first attempt) than in the P-LMA group (72.5%, first attempt). The airway leakage pressures were similar.
conclusionInsertion was easier, insertion time was lower, and nasogastric tube insertion success was higher with the I-gel application, and is, therefore, the preferred LMA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.