Jump to content


Photo

The One Second Intubation. (I-Gel) - H. Huitink


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 SerendepitySaki

SerendepitySaki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1176 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 08:16 AM

http://vumc.mediacor...batie-h-huitink


I-Gel
  • 0
LET THE WILD RUMPUS BEGIN !!!!!!
Sean G. Smith, RN-Alphabet Soup

#2 medic4cqb

medic4cqb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 308 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:59 PM

http://vumc.mediacor...batie-h-huitink


I-Gel


Neat product! Do you know of any programs employing the I-Gel here in the U.S.? Also, the VUMC video link shows the practitioner using a standard ETT with the device, but a YouTube link I found, shows just the device being inserted...do you know if that is just an option with the I-Gel?

Thanks B)
  • 0

Steve A., RN, CCRN, EMT-P

"The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness..."
- Bruce Lee


#3 old school

old school

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1121 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:49 PM

Cool video. I have yet to place the i-gel in a real patient, but I have used it on manikins and it seems pretty slick.
  • 0
bring it in for the real thing

#4 onearmwonder

onearmwonder

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 05:29 PM

http://vumc.mediacor...batie-h-huitink


I-Gel

Thanks Sean for the post... The I-Gel looks like a really promising product. I'm glad that they feel they can intubate in a quick time frame, but even though they had success in a manikin it doesn't show that it equates to human beings. Yes they say(Lip Service for now) they have seen the same results in humans, but yet to be determined. Sean I know you know this, but this technique with the fiberoptics doesn't apply to us prehospital. Also the gentleman in the video did say that success rates are up to 75%,but that has only been demonstrated in the second attempt. It's only up to 50% at best during the first attempt which would lead me to say that it takes well more than 1 second to intubate a patient when the intubation is confirmed via ETCO2. Also the technique they use to rapidly push the tube through the Igel is not one that is advocated for intubating through an EGA. A smooth and gentle technique that is patient safety oriented is the Only way to do it right. This antenuates further injury to PT airway and allows you to detect through subtle tactile manipulations of the EGA and tube that true intubation can be achieved. PT head and ELM also help to facilitate intubation as well. Also since we are on this topic check out the NEW Air-Q SP that has a cuff you don't have to inflate with syringe. PPV fills cuff and determines appropriate pressure through inhaltion and exhalation. Anyways here it is: http://mercurymed.co....php?type=85... Again Sean thanks for this...

Matt
  • 0

#5 SerendepitySaki

SerendepitySaki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1176 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:13 PM

as always, simply food for thought... i'll never chew it for you, or tell you what it is "supposed" to taste like... ;-) we discussed some bits on FB. my point is for folks to always find what WILL work and what IS applicable... relative to each unique practice environment.... it is impossible for anyone to know it all and every practice environment differs...
  • 0
LET THE WILD RUMPUS BEGIN !!!!!!
Sean G. Smith, RN-Alphabet Soup

#6 Badwedge

Badwedge

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 11:32 PM

My fire dept. uses them and by default our flight program receives some patients with them in place. IMO; not a big fan the silicone seal isn't as good as the Air-Q or straight up LMA's. The wide tongue blade like lumen is though benefical. Regards
  • 0

#7 onearmwonder

onearmwonder

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted 10 February 2014 - 11:21 AM

Interesting... Thanks for sharing your personal exp. I have read well over 100 studies on pub med regarding the Igel with a high majority of them stating they are equal in performance to other LMA type devices. Obviously we should take it with a grain of salt. But thanks for sharing. Would you be willing to state why you feel the way you do or give us some particular instances?

Matt
  • 0

#8 Badwedge

Badwedge

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 10 February 2014 - 09:48 PM

In the spirit of disclosure I have no commercial relationship with any airway product and have only read the product insert and our policies regarding their use. But I have put in a half dozen and received about the same number of patients with the I-Gel in. I simply find the air seal to leak more often, as noted by inhalation noise during ventilation and mixed results monitoring EtCO2. The King, Combi, LMA's more prevalent in my service area are less problematic. I'm sure some of those patients it was completely effective but there were some it was complete rubbish requiring replacement with conventional intubation. Regards John
  • 0

#9 Gila

Gila

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 06:22 AM

I wish I could comment. Just finished writing up a small, randomised study comparing the i-gel to another device. Recently completed institutional peer review and we are trying to publish so I cannot say much.
  • 0
Christopher Bare
"Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo "