Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 6, 2022; 10(4): 1242-1254
Published online Feb 6, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i4.1242
Comparison of the clinical performance of i-gel and Ambu laryngeal masks in anaesthetised paediatric patients: A meta-analysis
Di Bao, Yun Yu, Wei Xiong, Ya-Xin Wang, Yi Liang, Lu Li, Bin Liu, Xu Jin
Di Bao, Yun Yu, Wei Xiong, Ya-Xin Wang, Yi Liang, Lu Li, Bin Liu, Xu Jin, Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070, China
Author contributions: Wang YX, Liang Y, and Li L participated in the extraction and collection of the data; Xiong W participated in the quality assessment; Bao D contributed to the design and draft the manuscript; Liu B helped to draft the manuscript; Yu Y, Jin X contributed to perform statistical analyses and manuscript revision; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Supported by the Beijing Municipal Hospital Scientific Research Training Program, No. PX2017011.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Xu Jin, PhD, Doctor, Professor, Teacher, Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 119 Nansihuan West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing 100070, China. jxsys2020@gmail.com
Received: September 26, 2021
Peer-review started: September 26, 2021
First decision: October 18, 2021
Revised: October 26, 2021
Accepted: December 25, 2021
Article in press: December 25, 2021
Published online: February 6, 2022
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background

The inflatable Ambu laryngeal masks and non-inflatable i-gel are two widely used paediatric supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) in routine anaesthesia and served as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. However, the clinical performance and safety of the two devices in paediatric patients are still unclear and warrant further investigation.

Research motivation

In this study, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical performance and safety of Ambu laryngeal masks and i-gel in anaesthetised paediatric patients. The results of this study may provide clinical evidence for the application of laryngeal mask in anaesthetised paediatric patients.

Research objectives

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical performance and safety of Ambu laryngeal masks and i-gel in anaesthetised paediatric patients.

Research methods

We identified published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the intervention involved the use of Ambu laryngeal masks and i-gel in anaesthetised paediatric patients (age < 18 years) in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the inception dates to April 20, 2020 . We assessed the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were insertion time, success rate of insertion on the first attempt, and incidence of adverse events.

Research results

Data from seven RCTs with a total of 667 paediatric patients were evaluated and showed that the mean OLP and the incidence of adverse events was lower in the non-inflatable i-gel group in anaesthetised paediatric patients.

Research conclusions

The non-inflatable i-gel airway may provide a better seal with a low risk of adverse events and is therefore probably more suitable than the inflatable Ambu laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetised paediatric patients. However, the evidence is insufficient to allow making firm conclusions or to guide clinical practice, owing to the small number of relevant published studies.

Research perspectives

Further high-quality clinical studies of the application of laryngeal masks in anaesthetised paediatric patients are required to confirm our results.