Context: LMA is devised as a substitute for the face mask and an alternative for endotracheal Intubation. Aims: The objective of the study is to compare I-Gel and Proseal LMA. Settings and Design: Randomise prospective comparative study. Methods and Material: a study was conducted on 72 patients of age group 18-60 years with ASA I /II of either sex, admitted for elective surgery done under GA. All patients were pre-medicated with i.v Glycopyrrolate and Fentanyl. Preoxygenated for 3 mins.Induced with i.v Propofol and Scoline. Group
A- Proseal LMA Group B- I-Gel was inserted Statistical analysis used: The collected data was coded in an Excel spreadsheet. Demographic data was analyzed with a paired independent student’s T-test. p values < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. Fisher’s exact test or Chi-square was used to compare categorical data. Results: The mean airway leak pressure of the Proseal group was 30 cm H2O and significantly higher than I-Gel 23 cm H2O. There was no statistical difference in the ease of insertion in both devices. The overall
success rate was 100%. The mean insertion time was significantly less for I-Gel (14s) when compared to Proseal (24s). The gastric tube could be inserted easily in all the cases The hemodynamic response was comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: We conclude that Proseal has a higher airway leak pressure of 30cm H20 compared to I-Gel (23cm H2O) enabling positive pressure ventilation at higher pressures and therefore for a wider spectrum of patients. However, I-Gel is better than Proseal in terms of faster and easier insertion.