Background:We compared i-gel and ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) regarding time taken for insertion, effective seal, fiberoptic view of larynx, ease of Ryle's tube insertion, and postoperative sore throat assessment.Materials and Methods:In a prospective, randomized manner, 48 adult patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II of either gender between 18 and 60 years presenting for a short surgical procedure were assigned to undergo surgery under general anesthesia on spontaneous ventilation using either the i-gel or PLMA. An experienced nonblinded anesthesiologist inserted appropriate sized i-gel or PLMA in patients using standard insertion technique and assessed the intraoperative findings of the study regarding regarding time taken for respective device insertion, effective seal, fiberoptic view of larynx, ease of Ryle's tube insertion, and postoperative sore throat assessment. Postoperative assessment of sore throat was done by blinded anesthesia resident.Results:The time required for insertion of i-gel was lesser (21.98 ± 5.42 and 30.60 ± 8.51 s in Group I and Group P, respectively; P = 0.001). Numbers of attempts for successful insertions were comparable and in majority, device was inserted in first attempt. The mean airway leak pressures were comparable. However, there were more number of patients in Group P who had airway leak pressure >20 cm H2O. The fiberoptic view of glottis, ease of Ryle's tube insertion, and incidence of complications were comparable.Conclusion:Time required for successful insertion of i-gel was less in adult patients undergoing short surgical procedure under general anesthesia on spontaneous ventilation. Patients with airway leak pressure >20 cm H2O were more in PLMA group which indicates its better suitability for controlled ventilation.

Objectives: “Post-COVID-19 syndrome,” which may be the new pandemic, has affected various domains of quality of life; even among those who have recovered from mild COVID-19 disease. The aim of our study was to explore the health, social and psychological impact on healthcare workers (HCWs) who have recovered from active COVID-19 illness and highlight their needs post-recovery. Materials and Methods: It was a web-based survey study. A total of 163 eligible consenting HCWs participated in this survey. The Institutional Ethical Committee approval was obtained before study recruitment and the study was registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India. Each participant responded to 25 questions. Results: Among those participated, 51% were doctors, 32% were nurses and others were allied health professionals and students. About 82% had mild COVID-19 illness and 40% required hospitalisation for COVID-19 treatment. In the post-recovery period, 66% experienced health issues and fatigue on mild exertion was the most common symptom (42.94%). It was followed by anosmia and ageusia (21.47%), headache and myalgia (15.34%) and breathlessness (8.59%). About 82% HCW felt the need for a post-COVID-19 recovery health care unit. Potential risk of infecting family members was the most common concern (53.46%) followed by the fear of contracting the virus again (46.54%). About 35% of HCW experienced the fear of developing post-COVID-19 complications. About 78% of HCW did not report any psychological concerns, but one-third were stressed due to the financial impact. Conclusion: Post-COVID-19 syndrome impacts all domains of quality of life. Fatigue, loss of taste and smell, headache, myalgia and breathlessness continue to persist beyond recovery of active illness. Most of the HCWs emphasised the need to set up post-COVID-19 care units. The fear of contracting the virus again and financial drain due to hospital expenses continued to distress HCWs.

Conventional E-C technique of mask holding is unreliable during single person bag mask ventilation (BMV) due mainly to leak around the mask and inexperience of the persons. In this manikin study, conventional E-C technique was compared with E-O technique during single person BMV both with experienced (n = 50) and novice (n = 50) volunteers. The E-O technique involved encircling the mask neck with the web between thumb and index finger while the other digits provided chin lift. Two independent observers recorded the chest expansion as 1 (nil), 2 (minimal), 3 (moderate) and 4 (good). For analysis ideal and average chest expansion were clubbed as acceptable. E-C technique in experienced volunteers showed acceptable results in 49 (31 + 18) occasions, while with novices acceptable is 39 (17 + 22). With E-O technique, expansion was acceptable in 47 (38 + 9) experienced volunteers, and acceptable in 46 (32 + 14) novices. (P = 0.003). In cross over analysis for experienced volunteers, similar chest expansion was obtained on 30 occasions with both techniques, E-C better than E-O on 8 and E-O better than E-C on 12 occasions. Novices had comparable results on 17 occasions, E-C better than E-O on 8 and E-O better than E-C on 25 occasions (P = 0.016). The conventionally taught E-C technique of single person BMV provides acceptable chest expansion on most occasions with experienced operators than novices. Novices should use E-O technique as the first choice for single person BMV. Both techniques may be used interchangeably when one fails.