Main Article Content

Abstract

BACKGROUND


Supraglottic airway devices (SAD) like air Q and I-Gel are widely used in place of tracheal intubation for general anaesthesia. The present study was undertaken to compare the insertion conditions of these two supraglottic airway devices and as conduits for endotracheal tube (ETT) insertion in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries.


METHODS


100 patients belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade 1 and 2 between 18 to 70 years were randomly divided into 2 groups of 50 each. In group A, Air-Q was used and in group B, I-gel. The following parameters were compared while inserting SAD and endotracheal tube (ETT): number of insertion attempts, insertion time, ease of insertion, intraoperative and postoperative complications.


RESULTS


Insertion in first attempt was 90 % in air- Q and 72 % in I-gel. The mean time of insertion for air-Q was 7.28  1.46 seconds which  was shorter as compared to I-gel which was 8.46  2.18 seconds (p = 0.002). Air Q was easy to insert in 93 % cases and I-Gel in 52 % cases. ETT insertion through Air-Q was easy when compared to I-Gel .Complications occurred in some patients in both the groups.


CONCLUSIONS


We concluded that Air-Q has better efficacy than I-gel in terms of insertion conditions and as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.

Keywords

Air-Q, I-Gel, Supraglottic, Airway Insertion, Conduit.

Article Details

How to Cite
Babita Ramdev, Heena Goyal, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, & Archit Sharma. (2022). A Comparison of Air-Q and I-Gel in Terms of Insertion Conditions and as Intubating Aids for Elective Surgeries under General Anaesthesia. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences, 11(13), 918–923. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds.v11i13.291

References

  1. Neoh EU, Choy YC. Comparison of the Air-Q ILA™ and the LMA Fastrach™ in airway management during general anesthesia, Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia 2012;18(3): 150-5.
  2. Ramesh S, Jayanthi R. Supraglottic Airway Devices other than laryngeal mask airway and its prototypes. Indian J Anaesth 2005;49(4):281-92.
  3. Jindal P, Rizvi A, Sharma JP. Is I-Gel a new revolution among supraglottic airway device. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 2009;20(1):53-8.
  4. Halwagi AE, Massicotte N, Lallo A, et al. Tracheal intubation through the I-GelTM supraglottic airway versus the LMA FastrachTM: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg 2012;114(1):152-6.
  5. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fullekrug B, et al. A multicentre study comparing the proseal and classic LMA in anesthetized, non paralysed patients. Anaesthesiology 2002;92(2):289-95.
  6. Joffe AM, Liew EC, Galgaon RE, et al. The second generation Air-Q intubating laryngeal mask for airway maintenance during anaesthesia in adults:a report of the first 70 uses. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011;39(1):40-5.
  7. Ferson DZ, Rosenblatt WH, Johansen MJ, et al. Use of the intubating LMA-Fastrach in 254 patients with difficult to manage airways. Anesthesiology 2001;95(5):1175-81.
  8. Bakker EJ, Valkenburg M, Galvin EM. Pilot study of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in clinical use. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010;38(2):346-8.
  9. Karim YM, Swanson DE. Comparison of blind tracheal intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask airway (LMA Fastrach) and the Air-Q. Anaesth 2011;66(3):185-90.
  10. I-gel user guide [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://www.I-gel.com.
  11. Richez B, Saltel L, Banchereau F, et al. A new single use supraglottic airway device with a non inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study of I-gel. Anaesth Analg 2008;106(4):1137-9.
  12. Uppal V, Gangaiah S, Fletcher G, et al. Randomized crossover comparison between the I-Geland the LMA Unique in anaesthetized, paralysed adults. Br J Anesth 2009;103(6):882-5.
  13. Lee JR, Kim MS, Kim JT, et al. A randomized trial comparing the I-GelTM with the LMA classicTM in children. Anaesth 2012;67(6):606-11.
  14. Melissopoulou T, Stroumpoulis K, Sampanis MA, et al. Comparison of blind intubation through the I Gel and ILMA fastrach by nurses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a Mannikin study. Heart Lung J Crit Care 2014;43(2):112-6.
  15. Levitan RM, Kinkle WC. Initial anatomic investigations of I-gel airway: a novel supraglottic airway without inflatable cuff. Anaesthesia 2005;60(10):1022-6.
  16. Kapoor S, Jethava DD, Gupta P, et al. A comparison of supraglottic devices I-Gel and LMA Fastrach as conduit for endotracheal intubation. Indian J Anaesth 2014;58(4):397-402.
  17. Jagannathan N, Kho MF, Kozlowski RJ, et al. Retrospective audit of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway as a conduit for tracheal intubation in pediatric patients with a difficult airway. Pediatr Anesth 2011;21(4):422-7.
  18. Massoudi N, Fathi M, Nooraei N, et al. A comparison between I-gelR and Air-QTM supraglottic airway devices used for the patients undergoing general anesthesia with muscle relaxation. Anesthesiology Research Centre 2017;1(1):1-11.
  19. Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, et al. Evaluation of chest compression effect on airway management with Air-Q, Aura-I-Gel, and fastrack intubating supraglottic devices by novice physicians: a randomized crossover simulation study. J Anaesth Clin Res 2014;28(5):676-80.
  20. Krishna SG, Syed F, Hakim M, et al. A comparison of supraglottic devices in paediatric patients. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research 2018;11:361-65.
  21. Raza A, Khan TH. Comparison of tracheal intubation using i-gel™ & air-Q™ intubating LMA. Anaesth Pain & intensive Care 2014;18(4):367-70.
  22. Damodran S, Sethi, S, Malhotra SK, et al. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of Air Q laryngeal mask airway. Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia 2011;27:213-8.
  23. Kim MS, Lee JH, Han SW, et al. A randomized comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of Air Q, I gel with the LMA classic in children. Pediatric Anaesthesia 2015;25(4),405-12.
  24. Bhandari G, Mitra S, Shahi KS, et al. A comparative study evaluating I-gel and Air-Q LMA for ventilation in anaesthetized and paralysed patients. Ann of Intl Med & Den Res 2015;1(1):25-8.