Browsing by Author "Grewal, Tejinderpal Kaur"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    To Compare the Ease of Intubation Through an I-gel Versus AMBU AuraGain: A Prospective Randomised Study
    (Ibn Sina Academy of Medieval Medicine & Sciences, 2024-04) Bindra, Tripat Kaur; Grewal, Tejinderpal Kaur; Soni, Sumit; Duvedi, Shuchi; Gurlivleen
    Background: Supraglottic Airway Devices (SAD) have become a fundamental part of difficult airway algorithms and are attaining popularity as airway management device during general anaesthesia. These devices can also be used as conduit for endotracheal intubation. The study aimed to evaluate the success and ease of I-gel and Ambu AuraGain (AAG) as conduit for endotracheal intubation. Methods: 100 patients (20-60 years) were registered in this prospective, randomized study. After induction, appropriate size Ambu AuraGain/ I-gel were inserted. After confirmation of proper placement of SAD, endotracheal tube was inserted. The number of successful blind intubations, time taken for intubation through either of the SADs, number of attempts taken for effective SAD placement, time to achieve effective ventilation after SAD placement, number of attempts taken for blind endotracheal intubation, number of cases in which fiberoptic scope is used, hemodynamics and complications were recorded. Data was analyzed using chi square test and Fisher Exact Test. Results: The overall success rate for SAD placement was 100% in both the groups however insertion time was significantly shorter with I-gel(17.58±1.31seconds) compared to Ambu AuraGain (21.34±1.65seconds) (p<0.001). Success rate for blind intubation through SAD was significantly higher in I-gel group (40% in AAG and 74% in I-gel, p=0.002). The use of fiberoptic scope for intubation was similar in both the groups (60% in AAG and 76.9% in I-gel, p=0.284). Overall intubation success for I-gel was 94% and AAG was 76% (p=0.011) and time taken for successful intubation through I-gel was significantly less as compared to Ambu AuraGain (p<0.001). Conclusion: I-gel is a better conduit for endotracheal intubation than Ambu AuraGain with higher success rate and less time required for endotracheal intubation.