The Second-Generation Air-Q® Intubating Laryngeal Mask for Airway Maintenance during Anaesthesia in Adults: A Report of the First 70 Uses

Abstract

The second-generation air-Q ® intubating laryngeal airway is a newer commercially available supraglottic airway device. In this retrospective review, we describe our initial clinical experience of 70 insertions. The ease and number of insertion attempts, airway leak pressure, device positioning, duration of use, success of fibreoptic-aided intubation and oropharyngeal morbidity were recorded. The intubating laryngeal airway was successfully inserted in all 70 patients and functioned adequately as a primary airway in all 57 patients in which it was used. The median airway leak pressure was 25 and 30 cmH 2 O for the single-use and reusable devices (P=0.001), respectively. Fibreoptic-aided intubation using the intubating laryngeal airway as a conduit was successful in 12/13 (92%) cases. One in four (26%) patients complained of mild sore throat postoperatively before discharge. In our series, the intubating laryngeal airway performed adequately as a primary airway during anaesthesia with respect to ease of insertion, adequacy of airway maintenance, and as a conduit for intubation in both anticipated and unanticipated difficult airways. Further investigation is warranted regarding the role of the intubating laryngeal airway as a conduit for both blind and fibreoptic-aided intubation. In addition, the incidence of postoperative throat complaints deserves further scrutiny.

The Self-Pressurising Air-Q® Intubating Laryngeal Airway for Airway Maintenance during Anaesthesia in Adults: A Report of the First 100 Uses

“…In addition, our reported insertion success in ≤2 attempts (99%) is similar to that reported in two recent paediatric studies specifically evaluating the aILA-SP [5][6] . While the median ASP we report is higher than that reported for children (22 vs 16 to 18 cmH 2 O), which may be due to greater variance in airway anatomy from birth to childhood, it is lower than that previously reported for the aILA 1,4 .…”

The air-Q® intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA-ProSealTM: a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure*

“…Thus, our primary goal was to compare the airway seal pressures (as a surrogate for efficacy of lung ventilation) of the newest generation, silicone‐based, reusable air‐Q and the ProSeal in adults undergoing general anaesthesia. We hypothesised that the seal of the air‐Q would be commensurate with other frequently used SADs, but not as good as the ProSeal, as our early experience, albeit using the single‐use device, suggested an airway seal pressure on the order of 25 cmH 2 O [12]. Secondly, we sought to compare: overall insertion success; ease of insertion; positioning of the device in relation to the vocal cords; haemodynamic effects after initial placement; subjective ratings of overall clinical usefulness; and peri‐operative oropharyngolaryngeal morbidity, between the devices.…”

Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of air-Q™,i-gel™, and laryngeal mask airway supreme™ in adult patients during general anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial

“…[1216] On the other hand, reported mean OLP in adult patients in case of air-Q™ ranges between 19 cm and 30 cm H 2 O. [171819] However, it should be remembered that reported OLP for a supraglottic airway device depends on several factors such as use of muscle relaxant, methods of measurement, and type of ventilation (controlled vs. spontaneous respiration). We have found that time taken for air-Q™ insertion was significantly more than i-gel™ as well as LMA-S™ and insertion time is similar between i-gel™ and LMA-S™.…”