Comparison of Postoperative Throat and Neck Complaints after the Use of the i-Gel versus the Traditional Laryngeal Mask


Introduction: One of the most important jobs of an anesthesiology is to preserve an adequate gaseous exchange. With the coming in the 80’s of the laryngeal mask airway, a less invasive technique was introduced for this end. There are a lot of variants of these supraglotic issues, being the i-gel a no inflate mask; witch principle is to provide a perilaryngel stamp that reduced the incidence of sore throat, cervical pain compared with the traditional laryngeal mask. Method: A group of 121 ASA I-II patients with general anesthesia administration, where divided in two groups, one of 60 patients where a traditional laryngeal mask airway was used, and a second group of 61 patients where an i-gel mask was used. In both groups the presence of postoperative sore throat, cervical pain and dysphonia; number of attempts and pressure in the airway tract was measured. Results: The group of patients where the i-gel was used present lower incidence of sore throat (11% vs 27%) and cervical pain (3% vs 9%) and lower values of pressure on the airway tract compared with the group in which the conventional laryngeal mask was used. On the other hand there was no difference in the presence of dysphonia, trauma or number of attempts used to insert the mask. Conclusions: The i-gel larygeal mask demonstrated to be a safe issue, with low incidence of morbidity to administrated general anesthesia.

Share and Cite:

A. Sardi, M. Britto and J. Rangel, "Comparison of Postoperative Throat and Neck Complaints after the Use of the i-Gel versus the Traditional Laryngeal Mask," Open Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 3 No. 4, 2013, pp. 233-236. doi: 10.4236/ojanes.2013.34053.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] C. Keizger, et al., “A Comparison of Postoperative Throat and Neck Complaints after the Use of the i-Gel and the La Premiere Disposable Laryngeal Mask: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 109, No. 4, 2009, pp. 1092-1095. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181b6496a
[2] P. P. Higgins, F. Chung and G. Mezei, “Postoperative Sore Throat after Ambulatory Surgery,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 88, No. 4, 2002, pp. 582-584. doi:10.1093/bja/88.4.582
[3] L. G. Theiler, et al., “Crossover Comparison of the Laryngeal Mask Supreme and the i-gel in Simulated Difficult Airway Scenario in Anesthetized Patients,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 111, No. 1, 2009, pp. 55-62. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181a4c6b9
[4] R. M. Levitan and W. C. Kinkle, “Initial Anatomic Investigations of the i-Gel Airway: A Novel Supraglottic Airway without Inflatable Cuff,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 60, No. 10, 2005, pp. 1022-1026. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04258.x
[5] A. M. Cross, R. Pitti, C. Concil, D. Giraud, et al., “Severe Dysphonia after Use of Laryngeal Mask Airway,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 86, No. 2, 1997, pp. 498-500. doi:10.1097/00000542-199702000-00027
[6] J. Brimacombe and C. Keller, “Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Injury with the Laryngeal Mask,” Anästhesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1999, pp. 189-192. doi:10.1055/s-1999-176
[7] B. Richez, et al., “A New Single Use Supraglottic Airway Device with a Noninflatable Cuff and an Esophageal Vent: An Observational Study of the i-Gel,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, Vol. 106, No. 4, 2008, pp. 1137-1139. doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e318164f062
[8] N. M. Wharton, B. Gibbison, D. A. Gabbott, G. M. Haslam, et al., “i-Gel Insertion by Novices in Manikins and Patients,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 63, No. 9, 2008, pp. 991-995. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05542.x
[9] I. Cordero, “Estado Actual del Arte de la máscara Laríngea,” Revista Cubana de Anestesiología y Reanimación, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2004, pp. 43-46.
[10] M. Emmerich and R. Dummler, “Use of the i-Gel Laryngeal Mask for Management of a Difficult Airway,” Anaesthesist, Vol. 57, No. 8, 2008, pp. 779-781. doi:10.1007/s00101-008-1386-y
[11] J. Brimacombe, C. Keller, W. Roth and A. Loeckinger, “Large Cuff Volumes Impede Posterior Pharyngeal Mucosal Perfusion with the Laryngeal Tube Airway,” Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol. 49, No. 10, 2002, pp. 1084-1087.
[12] J. Brimacombe and C. Keller, “A Comparison of Pharyngeal Mucosal Pressure and Airway Sealing Pressure with the Laryngeal Mask Airway in Anesthetized Adult Patients,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, Vol. 87, No. 6, 1998, pp. 1379-1382.
[13] A. Rieger, B. Brunne and H. W. Striebel, “Intracuff Pressures Do Not Predict Laryngopharyngeal Discomfort after Use of the Laryngeal Mask Airway,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 87, No. 1, 1997, pp. 63-67. doi:10.1097/00000542-199707000-00009
[14] E. Figueredo, M. Vivar-Diago and F. Munoz-Blanco, “Laryngopharyngea Complaints after Use of Laryngeal Mask Airway,” Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1997, pp. 42-47. doi:10.1016/S0952-8180(96)00209-7
[15] E. Seet, “Use of Manometry for Laryngeal Mask Airway Reduces Postoperative Pharyngolaryngeal Adverse Events,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 112, No. 3, 2010, pp. 652-657. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181cf4346
[16] C. A. Hagberg, “Comparison of i-Gel to the Laryngeal Mask Airway (i-Gel),” Clinical Trials Government, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, 2008.
[17] P. Michalek, “A Comparison of the i-Gel Supraglottic Airway as a Conduit for Tracheal Intubation with the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway,” Resuscitation, Vol. 81, No. 1, 2009, pp. 74-77.
[18] D. Gabbott and R. Beringer, “The i-Gel Supraglottic Airway: A Potential Role for Resuscitation?” Resuscitation, Vol. 73, No. 1, 2007, pp. 161-162. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.10.026
[19] M. R. Nott, P. D. Noble, et al., “Reducing the Incidence of Sore Throat with the Laryngeal Mask Airway,” European Journal of Anaesthesiology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, pp. 153-157.
[20] J. Brimacombe, C. Keller and F. Puerhringer, “A Fibreoptic Evaluation of the Posterior Pharynx in Anesthetized Adult Patients with a Modified Cuffed Oropharyngeal Airway,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 91, No. 6, 1999, pp. 1661- 1665. doi:10.1097/00000542-199912000-00018

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.