Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway (Classic) and I-Gel; Ease of insertion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: At the time of induction during general anaesthesia the different complication can occur with endotracheal tube. Supraglottic devices are alternative of endotracheal tube and it prevents such complications. Aim: To compare the frequency of ease of insertion with lma and i-gel® during general anaesthesia. Method: 270 patients of asa class p1 & p2 undergoing general anaesthesia for elective surgeries were included after taking informed consent. Patients were divided into two groups a (lma classic) & b (i-gel) by using random number table. Each group comprised of 135 patients. In both groups dose of propofol was 2.5mg /kg body weight was given intravenously within 30 sec along with nalbuphine 0.1 mg /kg body weight and midazolam 0.05mg / kg body weight. The study design was quasi experimental and sampling technique was purposive non probability convenience sampling. Chi square test was used and collected data was analysed with spss version 20. Result: The ease of insertion in the lma classic group was 82% while the ease of insertion in i-gel® was 84 %. Statistically there was no significant difference of ease of insertion between two groups (p value = 0.41). Conclusion: Both devices have same level of ease of insertion. Keywords: Lma (laryngeal mask airway classic), i-gel®, general anaesthesia, ease of insertion
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".