1887
Volume 2026, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1999-7086
  • EISSN: 1999-7094

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the ease and success of placement of the i-gel, laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Protector, and Ambu AuraGain in relation to the operator’s experience.

This prospective randomized study included 90 patients of either sex aged 18–60 years, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II, with 30 patients allotted to each of the three groups (groups A, B, and C). In groups A, B, and C, the airway was secured using the i-gel, LMA Protector, and Ambu AuraGain, respectively. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the ease and success rate of placement of these three supraglottic airway devices (SADs), while the secondary objective was to compare their placement with respect to operator’s experience.

The insertion time of the SAD was 14.12 ± 6.82, 19.17 ± 9.07, and 14.86 ± 6.42 s in groups A, B, and C, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed between the i-gel and LMA Protector ( = 0.011) and between the Ambu AuraGain and LMA Protector ( = 0.029). The first-attempt success rate for placement was higher in group C (93.33%) compared with groups A and B (both 86.67%). The i-gel can be inserted quickly and easily, even by residents with limited airway management experience; however, placement of the LMA Protector was more difficult for residents with <20 SAD placements.

The current study concludes that the i-gel can be placed more swiftly without additional attempts by less experienced residents compared with the Ambu AuraGain and the LMA Protector.

© 2026 Kumar, Arjun G, Vashisht, Kaur, Anshul, Nidhi, et al, licensee HBKU Press.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2026.7
2026-01-26
2026-01-28

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jemtac/2026/1/jemtac.2026.7.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2026.7&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Brain Al. The laryngeal mask – a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth. 1983 Aug; 55:(8):801–5. http://doi.org/10.1093/bja/55.8.801
     [Google Scholar]
  2. I-gel instruction manual 2007. https://www.intersurgical.com/info/igel
  3. Kannaujia A, Srivastava U, Saraswat N, Mishra A, Kumar A, Saxena S. A preliminary study of I-gel: A new supraglottic airway device. Indian J Anaesth. 2009 Feb; 53:(1):52–6. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20640078/
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Van Zundert AAJ, Skinner MW, Van Zundert TCRV, Luney SR, Pandit JJ. Value of knowing physical characteristics of the airway device before using it. Br J Anaesth. 2016 Jul; 117:(1):12–6. http://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew106
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Jagannathan N, Hajduk J, Sohn L, Huang A, Sawardekar A, Gebhardt ER. et al. A randomised comparison of the Ambu® AuraGain™ and the LMA® supreme in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2016 Feb; 71:(2):205–12. http://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13330
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Wong DT, Tam AD, Mehta V, Raveendran R, Riad W, Chung FF. New supraglottic airway with built-in pressure indicator decreases postoperative pharyngolaryngeal symptoms: A randomized controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. 2013 Dec; 60:(12):1197–203. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-013-0044-2
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Vaida SJ, Yodfat UA. Angulation of the airway tube in the AMBU laryngeal mask could be responsible for improved insertion success. Anesth Analg. 2006 Jul; 103:(1):264. http://doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000215213.05622.7E
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hagberg CA, Jensen FS, Genzwuerker HV, Krivosic-Horber R, Schmitz BU, Hinkelbein J. et al. A multicenter study of the Ambu laryngeal mask in nonparalyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesth Analg. 2005 Dec; 101:(6):1862–6. http://doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000184181.92140.7C
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Lopez AM, Agusti M, Gambus P, Pons M, Anglada T, Valero R. A randomized comparison of the Ambu AuraGain versus the LMA supreme in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017 Dec; 31:(6):1255–62. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-016-9963-0
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Lopez AM, Sala-Blanch X, Valero R, Prats A. Cross-over assessment of the AmbuAuraGain, LMA supreme new cuff and intersurgical I-Gel in fresh cadavers. Open J Anesthesiol. 2014 Dec; 4:332–9. http://doi.org/10.4236/ojanes.2014.412047
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg. 1993 Feb; 76:(2):457. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8424538/
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Shin WJ, Cheong YS, Yang HS, Nishiyama T. The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010Jul; 27:(7):598–601. http://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283340a81
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Moser B, Audigé L, Keller C, Brimacombe J, Gasteiger L, Bruppacher HR. A prospective, randomized trial of the Ambu Aura Gain laryngeal mask versus the LMA® protector airway in paralyzed, anesthetized adult men. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018 Jun; 84:(6):684–92. http://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.17.12254-6
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu Y, Song Y, Wang M, Yang M, Shen H, Wang Z. et al. LMA Protector in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries: A multicenter prospective observational study BMC Anesthesiol. 2021 Dec 20; 21:(1):318. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01535-y
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Saracoglu KT, Turan A, Aydas A, Yilmaz M. Efficiency of laryngeal mask airway protector and i-gel as a conduit in Aintree catheter-guided fibreoptic tracheal intubation: A randomised clinical trial. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2022 Apr 12; 54:(2):120–6. http://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2022.115366
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gasteiger L, Hornung R, Woyke S, Hoerner E, Neururer S, Moser B. Evaluation of the New SingularityTM Air versus Ambu® Aura GainTM: A randomized, crossover Mannequin study. J Clin Med. 2022 Dec 7; 11:(24):7266. http://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11247266
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bollucuoğlu K, Baytar Ç, Küçükosman G, Ayoğlu H. The placement of four different supraglottic airway devices by medical students: A manikin study. Ann Med. 2023; 55:(2):2282746. http://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2023.2282746
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Liti A, Giusti GD, Gili A, Giontella M, Dell’Omo S, Camerlingo V, et al. Insertion of four different types of supraglottic airway devices by emergency nurses. A Mannequin-based simulation study. Acta Biomed. 2020 Nov 30: 91:(12-S):e2020016. http://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i12-S.10832
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Chang JE, Kim H, Lee JM, Min SW, Won D, Jun K, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison of the LMA-protector™ and i-gel™ in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019 Jul 4; 19:(1):118. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0785-8
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Zaballos M, Zaballos J, Lopez S, Fernandez-Dıez AI, Lluch-Oltra A, Mexedo C, et al. The LMA Protector in anaesthetised, non-paralysed patients: A multicentre prospective observational study. Anaesthesia. 2019 Jan 28; 74:(3):333–9. http://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14534
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Chan WK, Liu CY. Clinical performance comparison of LMA protector cuff pilot and LMA supreme when used in anesthetized, non-paralyzed . Cureus. 2022 Mar 15; 14:(3):e23176. http://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.23176
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Yilmaz M, Turan A, Saracoglu A, Saracoglu KT. Comparison of LMA protector vs. endotracheal tube in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2022; 54:(3):247–52. http://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2022.118878
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Nakanishi T, Sakamoto S, Yoshimura M, Fujiwara K, Toriumi T. Learning curve of i-gel insertion in novices using a cumulative sum analysis. Sci Rep. 2023 May; 13:(1): 7121. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34152-5
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2026.7
Loading
Assessing the ease and success of placement of three supraglottic devices (i-gel, LMA protector, and Ambu AuraGain) in relation to the operator’s experience: A prospective randomized study
Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care 2026, 7 (2026); https://doi.org/10.5339/jemtac.2026.7
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2026.7
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2026.7
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): Ambu AuraGain, ease of SAD insertion, i-gel and LMA Protector

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error