Comparative study between Air-Q and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway when used as conduit for fiber-optic

A cohort evaluation of clinical use and performance characteristics of Ambu® AuraGain™: A prospective observational study

“…The average time (standard deviation [SD]) taken for device insertion was 17.32 (8.48) s. This was comparable to other SGDs[ 7 9 13 ] though faster insertion times have been also reported. [ 12 ] AG was inserted with moderate ( n = 11) or high resistance ( n = 1) in 12 patients which is half of what has previously reported in paediatric patients[ 7 ] or with AMBU ® Aura-i™.…”

“…The time taken for intubation represents the apnoeic period, and it was slightly more than the time taken for intubation through the air-Q ILA™ (33.50 [6.79] s, mean [SD]) but similar to that through ILMA (39.50 [6.56] s mean [SD]) using a similar technique. [ 13 ] However, the longest intubation times during our study were within clinically acceptable limits. [ 22 ] This also correlates with our findings that none of the patients had oxygen desaturation during the entire process.…”

“…[ 7 12 ] Similar incidence of epiglottis visualisation has also been reported with intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA). [ 13 ] Although the success of blind intubation through AG was not assessed in the current study, use of fibre-optic bronchoscope to view the laryngeal inlet helped us in assessing the feasibility of blind intubation through the AG, especially in emergency, where it may be considered as a conduit. The Brimacombe grade was ≤2 in 32 patients which improved with manoeuvres.…”

“…[ 7 14 ] Similar leak pressures have been reported previously suggesting that AG is as effective as other second-generation SGDs. [ 13 15 16 ]…”

Comparison of performance and efficacy of air‐Q intubating laryngeal airway and flexible laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized and paralyzed infants and children

“…Air‐Q ILA ™ (Cook gas LLC; Mercury Medical, Clearwater, FL, USA) is a newer SAD used as a primary airway device and as a conduit for intubation in anticipated or unanticipated difficult airways in children and adults . Available literature shows that air‐Q performs equal or better than other SADs in children and adults . However, limited data is available in the literature using air‐Q in infants .…”