We performed a randomised comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Classic™ in children aged less than a year who were undergoing general anaesthesia for elective surgery. Fifty-four infants were randomly allocated to either the i-gel or the LMA Classic. We measured performance characteristics, fibreoptic views through the device and complications. Success rate at first insertion attempt was 100% (27/27) in the i-gel group compared with 88% (23/26) in the LMA Classic group. Insertion of the device was considered easy in 26/27 (96%) patients in the i-gel group compared with 18/26 (69%) patients in the LMA Classic group (p = 0.009). There were no differences between the groups in insertion times, fibreoptic views through the device, airway leak pressures or complications. We conclude that the i-gel was considered easier to insert than the LMA Classic in infants.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
2
5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
2
5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance
1
2%
Neuroscience
1
2%
Other
0
0%
Unknown
15
36%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2014.
All research outputs
#7,649,040
of 24,571,708 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#2,734
of 5,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,691
of 248,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#34
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,571,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 248,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
