English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background and aim  The primary aim of the study was to compare the intubation characteristics and effectiveness of intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) and Ambu® Aura-i™ as a conduit for facilitating fiberoptic-guided intubation.  Methods  Eighty patients were enrolled in the randomized-controlled hospital-based study. After inducing general anesthesia, an appropriately sized ILMA (group 1)/Ambu Aura-I (group 2) was placed. Fiberoptic assessment of the glottic view was done followed by fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. The time taken for the insertion of ILMA/Ambu Aura-i, glottic view grading, time taken for fiberoptic-guided intubation, ease of intubation, time taken for the removal of ILMA/Ambu Aura-i were recorded. Data analysis was done using the two-tailed independent t-test, paired t-test, and Fisher’s exact probability test.  Result  Anthropometric and airway parameters were similar in both groups. The success rate of the insertion of both devices was 100%. In group 1, the mean time taken for the insertion was 20.53±1.91, and it was 13.98±2.4 in group 2 (P<0.001S). Fiberoptic assessment of the glottic view in group 1 (ILMA group) was grade 1 in 80% of the patients, whereas it was 92% in group 2 (Ambu Aura-i) (P=0.54). The mean time taken for fiberoptic-guided intubation was 14.95±1.85 in group 1 and 14.15±1.37 in group 2 (P>0.001). No significant difference was observed according to the number of attempts in intubating through ILMA/Ambu Aura-i. Seventy-five percent (75%) in group 1 and 87.5% in group 2 were successfully inserted on the first attempt ( = 0.33). The time taken for the removal of the device was 11.87 +1.265 seconds in group 1 and 11.25±1.58 seconds in group 2 (P=0.054).  Conclusion  The Ambu Aura-i scores superiorly over ILMA in requiring less time for successful insertion on the basis of statistical analysis and hence appears to be a better independent ventilatory device.

curēus

Comparison of Fiberoptic-Guided Tracheal Intubation Through Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA) FastrachTM and Ambu® Aura-i™: A Randomized Clinical Study