Comparison of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal mask airway and the Ambu AuraGain laryngeal mask airway as a conduit for fibreoptic assisted endotracheal intubation for simulated cervical spine injury.

INTRODUCTION: Airway management in patients with a cervical spine injury is a difficult and challenging task. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway and the Ambu AuraGain laryngeal mask airway as a conduit for fibreoptic (FO) assisted endotracheal intubation in adult patients with a simulated cervical spine injury. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 66 adult patients underwent elective surgery under general anaes-thesia, and they were randomized to two groups: the Air-Q (AQ) group (n = 33) and the Ambu AuraGain (AA) group (n = 33). A simulated cervical spine injury was created using a cervical collar, which was applied after the induction of general anaesthesia. Ease of insertion, time taken for successful insertion, time taken for successful FO guided endotracheal intubation, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), Brimacombe score for FO laryngeal view, post-intubation complications and haemodynamic changes were recorded for both groups. RESULTS: The OLP was significantly higher in the AA group than in the AQ group (34.9 ± 6.4 vs. 28.6 ± 7.8 cm H 2 O; P = 0.001). Otherwise, there were no significant differences in the ease of insertion, time taken for successful insertion, time taken for successful FO guided endotracheal intubation, Brimacombe score for FO laryngeal view, haemodynamic parameters or complication rate between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Air-Q was comparably effective as Ambu AuraGain as a conduit for FO endotracheal intubation in patients with a simulated cervical spine injury; however, Ambu AuraGain has a better seal with significant OLP.

Comparison of the Baska mask and the i-gel supraglottic airway devices in patients undergoing elective surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The Baska mask and i-gel are two new types of second-generation supraglottic airway devices. The aim of this study was to compare these two devices in terms of quality of insertion, quality of ventilation and post-insertion complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 80 adult patients who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia were randomised to two groups: Group BM: Baska mask (n = 40) and Group IG: i-gel (n = 40). The assessment focused on ease of insertion, number of attempts, insertion time, number of corrective manoeuvres, oropharyngeal leak pressure, tidal volume, peak airway pressure (PAP) and post-insertion complications. RESULTS: Group IG showed a significantly shorter median insertion time (13.3 [interquartile range, IQR 7.8] vs. 17.0 [IQR 9.6] s; P < 0.001), a higher percentage in the 'very easy' ease of insertion category (62.5% vs. 10.0%; P < 0.001), a higher percentage in the no corrective manoeuvre category (92.5% vs. 72.5%; P = 0.003) and a higher percentage in the no post-operative throat pain category (67.5% vs. 32.5%; P = 0.011) than Group BM. However, Group BM showed a significantly higher generated PAP than Group IG (12.7 [1.8] and 11.5 [2.2] cm H2O, respectively; P = 0.010). There were no significant differences in other parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The i-gel was better than the Baska mask in terms of ease of insertion, speed of insertion, fewer corrective manoeuvres and less post-operative throat pain. However, the Baska mask had a better cuff seal, as shown by a higher generated PAP.