ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2020
Comparing I-Gel to Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airways in Infants: A Prospective Randomised Clinical Study.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrast of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of I-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ in patients: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of different muscle relaxation depths on the placement of the i-gel laryngeal mask and the analysis of influencing factors on postoperative sore throat: a retrospective study based on general anesthesia in adult patients.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Dependence of Successful Airway Management in Neonatal Simulation Manikins on the Type of Supraglottic Airway Device and Providers' Backgrounds.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Review
- The effects of on hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, peak airway pressure and adverse events during anesthesia for thyroid surgery: tracheal intubation Vs. ProSeal laryngeal mask airway.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLaryngeal mask airways and the I-gel have become increasingly popular for children undergoing minor surgery. The goal of our study is to compare I-gel and ProSeal laryngeal mask airways (LMA) in infants by analysing different parameters, such as insertion success, ventilation, haemodynamic changes and postoperative complications.
methodsFor this prospective, randomised study, we selected 123 infants with an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) status I, who were undergoing minor elective lower abdominal surgery. After obtaining verbal and written informed consent from the parents, the infants were divided into two groups: the I-gel group (n=60) and the ProSeal LMA group (n=63). The times and ease of insertion, percentages of tidal volume leakage, and means and leakage pressures of these two supraglottic airways were noted. The complications and side-effects of each method were also recorded.
resultsThe insertion time of the ProSeal group was statistically shorter than that of the I-gel group. The peak and mean pressures and the leakage percentage of the ProSeal group were statistically lower than those of the I-gel group. The leakage pressure of the ProSeal group was statistically higher than the I-gel group.
conclusionIn comparison with I-gel, the use of ProSeal LMA in infants' anaesthesia presents many advantages, such as the ease of its insertion, better oropharyngeal leakage pressure and less mucosal hyperaemia.
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.