Chulalongkorn Medical Journal


Background : Tracheal intubation with manual in-line stabilization (TT-MILS) isthe standard management in patients with cervical spine injury.The procedure of which is not practical for inexperienced personnel.Supraglottic airway device has a role in difficult airway managementand been proved to be easy for new users. It may be effective forairway management in the setting of limited cervical spinemovement.Objective : To compare airway management by i-gel, LMA-ProSeal™ andTT-MILS in anesthetized, paralyzed patients with simulated difficultairway by rigid cervical collar.Research design : A randomized, double-blind comparison study.Setting : In the operating rooms and surgical wards, King ChulalongkornMemorial Hospital, a tertiary hospital with 1500 beds.Materials and Methods : Sixty patients scheduled for superficial surgery which requiredgeneral anesthesia were recruited and randomized into threegroups as follows, i-gel, LMA-ProSeal™ and TT-MILS. The patientsand assessors were blinded. Primary outcome was the time tosuccessful ventilation. Other measurements were insertion attempts,positive leak pressure, fiber optic-assessed glottic view,intraoperative and postoperative complications.Results : Twenty patients were assigned to each groups. Times to successfulventilation were not statistically different (i-gel 43.01 ± 26.94 s;LMA-ProSeal™ 50.05 ± 45.73 s; TT-MILS 68.43 ± 46.69 s;P = 0.113). The success rate for i-gel was 90% in the first attemptand 10% in second attempt vs. that of LMA-ProSeal™ which was95% in the first attempt and 5% in the second attempt (P = 0.536).The positive leak pressure was significantly higher in LMA-ProSeal™group than that of in the i-gel group (25.55 ± 3.01 cmH2O vs.23.35 ± 3.31 cmH2O; P = 0.035). The glottic views were notstatistically different between the groups. The incidences of sorethroat and odynophagia were significantly lower in the i-gel andLMA-ProSeal™ groups, compared to that of the TT-MILS group(P = 0.000, 0.017 respectively).Conclusion : I-gel had shorter insertion time compared to LMA-Proseal™ andTT-MILS. Regarding the less seal, i-gel might be a reasonablealternative to the LMA-Proseal™ and TT-MILS in patients withreduced neck movement and limited mouth opening.



First Page


Last Page




To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.