Comparison of new generation baska mask with i-gel and classical laryngeal mask in outpatient urological interventions

Objectives: To compare the clinical performance of the baska mask (PTY Ltd, Australia), i-gel (Intersurgical Ltd, UK) and classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) in adult patients undergoing outpatient urologic interventions. Methods: One hundred fifty patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists I-III physical status were enrolled between January 2017 and September 2017 in Yuksek Ihtisas Research and Educational Hospital, Ankara, Turkey for elective urological surgery for this prospective randomized controlled trial. There were 50 patients in each of the following groups: baska mask, i-gel, and cLMA. In each group, the insertion times, ventilation times, ‘first attempt’ success rates, airway dynamics-complications and hemodynamic variables were evaluated. Results: No statistically significant values were observed in means of demographic data, airway dynamics, complications, and hemodynamic variables. Insertion and ventilation times were different between groups ( p less than  0.001 for each). In cLMA group, insertion and ventilation times were found to be shorter than others (insertion times 5.78±1.72 seconds and ventilation times 11.72±4.72 seconds). The longest insertion and ventilation times were observed in baska mask with 12.04±6.25 and 21.26±8.53 seconds. The ‘first attempt’ success rates were 98% for cLMA, 92% for i-gel, and 88% for baska mask. The addition maneuvering requirements in baska mask group was  20% (40/10). Conclusion: When cLMA, i-gel and baska mask are compared regarding insertion and ventilating times, first attempt success rates, and additional maneuvers, cLMA and i-gel are superior to baska mask in urological ambulatory surgical cases.  Saudi Med J 2019; Vol. 40 (7): 694-700 doi: 10.15537/smj.2019.7.23824 How to cite this article: Bindal M, Demir A, Koculu R, Sabuncu U, Ozgok A . Comparison of new generation baska mask with i-gel and classical layngeal mask in outpatient urological interventions. Suadi Med J 2019; 40 (1): 694-700. doi: 10.15537/smj.2019.7.23824.