Premium
A comparison of fibreoptic‐guided tracheal intubation through the Ambu ® Aura‐i ™ , the intubating laryngeal mask airway and the i‐gel ™ : a manikin study
Author(s) -
Lloyd L. J.,
Subash F.,
Wilkes A. R.,
Hodzovic I.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
anaesthesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.839
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1365-2044
pISSN - 0003-2409
DOI - 10.1111/anae.12988
Subject(s) - medicine , intubation , tracheal intubation , laryngeal masks , airway , anesthesia , larynx , airway management , laryngoscopy , aura , tracheal tube , mascara , surgery , laryngeal mask airway , migraine
Summary We compared the Aura‐i ™ , intubating laryngeal mask airway and i‐gel ™ as conduits for fibreoptic‐guided tracheal intubation in a manikin. Thirty anaesthetists each performed two tracheal intubations through each device, a total of 180 intubations. The median ( IQR [range]) time to complete the first intubation was 40 (31–50 [15–162]) s, 37 (34–48 [25–75]) s and 28 (22–35 [14–59]) s for the Aura‐i, intubating laryngeal mask airway and i‐gel, respectively. Tracheal intubation through the i‐gel was the quickest (p < 0.01). Resistance to railroading of the tracheal tube over the fibrescope was significantly greater through the Aura‐i compared with the intubating laryngeal mask airway and the i‐gel (p = 0.001). There were no failures to intubate through the intubating laryngeal mask airway or the i‐gel but six intubation attempts through the Aura‐i were unsuccessful, in five owing to a railroading failure and in one owing to accidental oesophageal intubation. We conclude that the Aura‐i does not perform as well as the intubating laryngeal mask airway or the i‐gel as an adjunct for performing fibreoptic‐guided tracheal intubation.