Comparison of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal mask airway and the Ambu AuraGain laryngeal mask airway as a conduit for fibreoptic assisted endotracheal intubation for simulated cervical spine injury.

INTRODUCTION

Airway management in patients with a cervical spine injury is a difficult and challenging task. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway and the Ambu AuraGain laryngeal mask airway as a conduit for fibreoptic (FO) assisted endotracheal intubation in adult patients with a simulated cervical spine injury.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 66 adult patients underwent elective surgery under general anaes-thesia, and they were randomized to two groups: the Air-Q (AQ) group (n = 33) and the Ambu AuraGain (AA) group (n = 33). A simulated cervical spine injury was created using a cervical collar, which was applied after the induction of general anaesthesia. Ease of insertion, time taken for successful insertion, time taken for successful FO guided endotracheal intubation, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), Brimacombe score for FO laryngeal view, post-intubation complications and haemodynamic changes were recorded for both groups.

RESULTS

The OLP was significantly higher in the AA group than in the AQ group (34.9 ± 6.4 vs. 28.6 ± 7.8 cm H 2 O; P = 0.001). Otherwise, there were no significant differences in the ease of insertion, time taken for successful insertion, time taken for successful FO guided endotracheal intubation, Brimacombe score for FO laryngeal view, haemodynamic parameters or complication rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Air-Q was comparably effective as Ambu AuraGain as a conduit for FO endotracheal intubation in patients with a simulated cervical spine injury; however, Ambu AuraGain has a better seal with significant OLP.