Background and Aims: Videolaryngoscopes have attained prime importance in securing the airway in children in the present era. McGrath videolaryngoscope is available with single-use non-channeled fog-free disposable blades of various sizes showing its efficacy for intubation in adults but still lacunae in data related to children. Materials and Methods: In this prospective randomized controlled trial, a total of 88 children of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II aged 1–10 years, weighing 10–20 kg undergoing general anesthesia were enrolled. Using the sealed envelope technique, the children were randomly allocated between Group G, in whom McGrath videolaryngoscope and Group M, in whom Macintosh laryngoscope was used for intubation. The primary aim was to compare intubation time between the two videolaryngoscopes. The secondary outcomes included glottic exposure time, Cormack and Lehane grading, number of attempts of intubation, intubation difficulty scale and complications. Statistical analysis was done using MedCalc software. The Student's t-test and Chi-square test were used for quantitative and categorical data, respectively. Results: The mean intubation time was comparable in both the groups (18.14 ± 17.80 s in Group G vs. 17.30 ± 16.74 s in Group M, P = 0.821). The mean time to glottic exposure was shorter (5.66 ± 4.58 vs. 8.50 ± 5.59 s, P = 0.0108) with decreased number of attempts of tube insertion and less incidences of trauma observed in patients with Group G as opposed to Group M. The Cormack and Lehane grading showed better glottic view in Group G. Conclusion: McGrath videolaryngoscope is as useful as the Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation in children with the added advantages of a better view of the larynx, lesser attempts to intubation, and fewer incidence of trauma.

In lower leg surgeries involving fractures of distal tibia, ankle surgeries, debridement and PVD surgeries choice of anesthesia is usually regional anesthesia. When these patients are associated with co-morbid cardio-respiratory problems then it will become challenge for anesthesiologist to maintain homeostasis with good surgical anesthesia. Ayukut urfalioglu suggested another alternative technique in the form of Adductor canal block plus Lateral approach popliteal sciatic block as good alternative for these surgeries with better Intra-operative Haemodynamic Stability, additional post-operative pain relief and less requirement of systemic analgesia post-operatively.In this prospective randomised controlled trial, we aim to explore the efficacy of Adductor canal block plus Popliteal Sciatic Block for Lower leg surgeries. Sixty patients (ASA I, II, III) undergoing lower limb surgeries were randomly allocated in 2 groups (30 patients in each group). In Group P patients received PNS guided Adductor canal block combined with popliteal sciatic block and in group S patients received unilateral spinal anesthesia.: The primary objectives were to evaluate duration of sensory and motor block and post-operative pain relief. Secondary objectives included intra operative requirements of additional anesthesia and intraoperative haemodynamic stability.There was significant intraoperative haemodynamic stability and post-operative pain relief attributable to Group P. Time for first requirement of rescue analgesia post-operatively was significantly higher in Group P compared to Group S (Group P Mean SD15.9±5.26 vs 6.05±1.23 in Group S with p= < 0.0001).Combined adductor canal block and popliteal sciatic block can be an alternative technique with advantage of prolonged post-operative analgesia and haemodynamic stability.