A prospective randomised trial to compare three insertion techniques for i-gel™ placement: Standard, reverse, and rotation.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This prospective randomised study was done to compare standard, reverse, and rotation techniques of i-gel™ placement in terms of insertion characteristics and success rate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: After institutional ethics committee approval, 135 patients aged 18-50 years, ASA I and II undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were included. After induction of anesthesia, i-gel™ was inserted by standard, reverse, and rotation technique in Groups I, II, and III, respectively. The primary objective was mean time of insertion. Secondary variables included ease of insertion, first attempt success rate, manoeuvres required, fiberoptic view of placement, oropharyngeal leak pressure, ease of placement of nasogastric tube, and complications if any. RESULTS: Mean time of insertion was 18.04 ± 5.65 s, 15.00 ± 5.72 s and 16.12 ± 5.84 s for groups I, II, and III, respectively. Time taken for insertion was shortest and significantly lower (P = 0.048) for group II compared to group I. Insertion time was comparable between rest of groups. The overall success rate in groups I, II, and III were 91.1%, 95.6%, and 93.3% respectively (P = 0.7). The first attempt success rate was 82.2%, 89%, and 84.4% in groups I, II and III, respectively (P = 0.07). Manoeuvres were required in five (12.19%) patients in group I, four (9.30%) patients in group II, and three (7.14%) patients in group III (P = 0.602). Complications occurred in eight, three, and three patients in groups I, II, and III, respectively. CONCLUSION: All techniques of i-gel insertion are equally good and choice of technique depends upon the experience and comfort of the investigator with the particular technique.