• P-ISSN 2394-9481 E-ISSN 2394-949X
  • Before December 2023, article status/review can be accessed using old submissions tab

Journal of Medical Sciences and Health

Journal of Medical Sciences and Health

Year: 2024, Volume: 10, Issue: 1, Pages: 86-95

Original Article

Influence of Head and Neck Position on Ventilation Using Three Different Supraglottic Airway Devices (I-Gel, Ambu Auragain, BaskaMask) in Anaesthetized and Paralyzed Patients: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study

Received Date:25 September 2023, Accepted Date:11 January 2024, Published Date:22 April 2024

Abstract

Background: Supraglottic airway devices play a crucial role in managing the airway during various surgical procedures conducted under general anesthesia. In this study, we evaluated the impact of different head and neck positions (extension, flexion, neutral, and right rotation) on ventilation while using I-gel, Ambu AuraGain, and Baska masks in anesthetized paralyzed patients. Methodology: A total of 114 patients were randomly allocated into Group I (n=38) using I-Gel, Group II (n=38) using Ambu AuraGain, and Group III (n=38) using Baska Mask. Clinical performance in terms of OLP (Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure) and anatomical position of the device was evaluated after insertion under general anaesthesia. Ventilation parameters including peak airway pressure, EtCO2 (End-tidal Carbon Dioxide), expiratory tidal volume and ventilation score were assessed at different head and neck positions using three supraglottic airway devices. Results Maximum OLP was observed in Group II and minimum OLP was observed in Group I. In all three devices, OLP was maximum in the flexion position and minimum in the extension position. The Median Brimacombe score was 3 in all three groups at all head and neck positions except at maximum extension in Group I. Although peak airway pressure in Group II is significantly higher than the other two groups, ventilation is not impacted as evidenced by comparable ventilation score, EtCO2 and expiratory tidal volume in all patients of three groups at different head and neck positions. Conclusion To conclude, Ambu Auragain has better anatomical seal at all head and neck positions as compared to I-gel and Baska Mask. However, despite differences in OLP, the ventilatory performances of the three devices were not significantly affected.

Keywords: Ambu Auragain, Baska Mask, I-Gel, Supraglottic Airway Device, Head And Neck Position, Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure

Introduction

Over the past 25 years, numerous adaptations, enhancements, and alternatives have been introduced in the field of anaesthetic care, specifically pertaining to Supraglottic Airway Devices (SADs) 1. These devices play a crucial role in managing the airway during surgical procedures conducted under general anesthesia. SADs offer a viable option for tracheal intubation due to their favorable attributes, including stable hemodynamics and reduced airway complications 2.

SADs can be categorized into three main generations: first-generation devices (basic airway tubes), 34. The Baska mask (Figure 1), a 3rd-generation SAD, has recently gained popularity with patients undergoing ambulatory surgeries and procedures involving pneumoperitoneum as it offers an improved airway seal, especially when combined with intermittent positive pressure ventilation 56. On the other hand, I-gel (Figure 2) is a cuffless device crafted from a thermoplastic elastomer similar to a soft gel and is aimed to establish a close interface with the supraglottic tissues for effective interaction 7. Another disposable SAD, Ambu AuraGain (Figure 3) is also composed of thermoplastic elastomer and is designed to conform to the airway's anatomy and to provide high sealing pressure 8.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/7112db25-1ef2-4561-aeba-0654589218e6image1.png
Figure 1: Special Features of Baska Mask
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/7112db25-1ef2-4561-aeba-0654589218e6image2.png
Figure 2: Special Features of I-Gel
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/7112db25-1ef2-4561-aeba-0654589218e6image3.png
Figure 3: Special Features of Ambu AuraGain

SADs have been utilized in patients undergoing various surgeries, adapting to different head and neck positions. The pharyngeal space, both in terms of volume and shape, experiences significant alterations as the head and neck position changes 9. This change in pharyngeal anatomy affects the performance of SADs in terms of sealing efficacy, ventilation quality and fiber optic visualization 91011.

Previously, there have been a limited number of studies examining the impact of head and neck positions on SAD's performance during various surgical procedures, but these studies have presented conflicting results. In this study, our objective was to assess how different head-neck positions (extension, flexion, neutral and right rotation) influence various parameters including OLPs, ventilator score, fibreoptic view of the glottis, peak airway pressure, EtCO2 and expiratory tidal volume. We evaluated these parameters for all three SAD devices (I-gel, Ambu AuraGain, and Baska mask) in anesthetized paralyzed patients.

Methodology

The study was a randomized prospective study carried out at a tertiary-level hospital. Ethical approval was given by the “institutional ethics committee of the hospital. The study included all patients” with age from 18 to 65 years who had ASA (‘American Society of Anaesthesiologists’) classification I to II and underwent elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia. Exclusion criteria included patient refusal, BMI (‘Body Mass Index’) > 40kg/m2, patients with a high risk of regurgitation and aspiration, respiratory tract pathology and surgery lasting more than 02 hours.

A total of 114 patients, who have given informed written consent, were randomly allocated into 3 equal groups. The participants were allocated to respective groups randomly by using Block Randomization (Block of 6). The randomization sequence was generated with the use of online tool (sealed envelope TM) and allocation concealment was done by using opaque envelopes. The envelopes were provided with coding system before the study by the Statistician. All the patients enrolled in the study underwent standard pre-anaesthetic check-up.

Standard monitoring (non-invasive blood pressure, electrocardiography and pulse oximetry) was carried out before the induction of anaesthesia. Standard general anaesthesia was given with intravenous Propofol (1 to 2 mg per kg), Fentanyl (1- 2mcg/kg), and Atracurium (0.5mg/kg). Anaesthesia was kept with an inhalational agent (Sevoflurane) with a mixture of oxygen and air. Ventilatory settings were adjusted to maintain an EtCO2 of 35-40 mmHg. Balanced crystalloid solutions were administered as per the intra-operative requirement.

All patients were positioned supine with their head and neck in a neutral posture without the use of a headrest. The manufacturer's recommendations were followed while determining the SAD's size. SAD was introduced while maintaining the patient's neck flexed and head extended. Head-neck was returned to its neutral position (occiput resting on the operating table) after SAD insertion. The cuff of the cuffed SAD (Ambu AuraGain) was filled with air. Neutral position was maintained with the external ear canal level with the top of the shoulder and the ear eye line (from the external ear canal to the superior orbital margin) being vertical. The patient has been then repositioned into the following positions: flexion (to the maximum extent), extension (to the maximum extent) and maximal rotation to the right. The neutral position served as the starting point for each position shift, and the SAD's depth of insertion was kept constant. Bilateral chest movement on auscultation, a normal capnograph curve and fiberoptic imaging of the glottic aperture were used to determine the correctness of SAD’s insertion. Various manipulations, such as gentle pulling or pushing of the device, chin lifts, jaw thrusts, head extension and neck flexion were used in cases of insufficient ventilation. If ventilation did not improve after these techniques, the device was taken out and the patient was intubated with an endotracheal tube.

The ventilation score ranged from 0-3 on the basis of three standards: No airway leakage at a pressure of 15cm of H2O; bilateral chest excursions at a PIP (Peak Inspiratory Pressure) of 20 cm of H2O; and presence of square wave capnogram; every item receiving a score of 0 or 1 1213. Therefore, when all three requirements were met, a ventilation score of 3 was obtained. Any adverse event that occurred with the change of position that decreased ventilation was recorded. The device was then brought back to position where there was no compromise in ventilation. Various other ventilatory parameters like peak airway pressure, EtCO2 and expiratory tidal volume were also noted for each device at all head and neck positions.

An independent anaesthesiologist assessed the anatomical position of SAD in each position of the head & neck by fibreoptic evaluation of the glottis, after passing a fibreoptic scope via the airway tube of the device (Figure 4). Brimacombe scoring system was used for the scoring of “fibreoptic view of the glottis (score 1 if the vocal cords are not visible; score 2 if the vocal cords plus anterior epiglottis are visible; score 3 if the vocal cords plus posterior epiglottis are visible; score 4 if only vocal cords are visible) 1415.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/7112db25-1ef2-4561-aeba-0654589218e6image4.png
Figure 4: Fibreoptic View of Glottis using Brimacombe Scoring System.

 

OLP or Leak Airway Pressure (LAP) during all positions of head and neck was examined by placing the anaesthesia circle breathing system” in manual or bag mode, with the APL (Adjustable Pressure Limiting) valve closed and a fixed gas flow of 3 liter/minute. Airway pressure was allowed to increase until the leak around the cuff achieved equilibrium, but it was not allowed to go over 40 cm H2O 16. This airway pressure at equilibrium was considered as LAP. Any of the approaches like a palpable leak around the cuff; an audible noise above the mouth; or auscultation of noise with a stethoscope placed directly lateral to the thyroid cartilage; was considered for the detection of the leak around the cuff. The differences between the mean leak airway pressure and mean peak airway pressure (LAW-PAW) were also calculated.

Once the patient had recovered consciousness and was responding to verbal orders after reversal of neuromuscular blockade, SAD was withdrawn. Patient was then shifted to the PACU (Post-Anaesthesia Care Unit) and was observed for postoperative recovery.

The sample size was calculated using G Power Analysis software. F test and ANOVA: Fixed Effects, omnibus & A priori analysis were used for Power Calculation.

The standard deviation of leak pressure (SD=6.6) and a clinically relevant change (d) in leak pressure (d=4cm H2O) from a previous study9 were taken for calculation of Effect size using below formula:

Effect size= d/S.D. where,

d= clinically meaningful difference

S.D. = Standard Deviation

With the calculated Effect size of 0.36, a level of significance of 5% (Zα indicates normal deviate at a level of significance of 5%, Zα= 1.96), power of 90% (Z1-β indicates the normal deviate at a power of 90%, Z1-β= 1.28) and number of groups of 3 were considered and entered into G Power. After considering 10% dropout due to methodological difficulties, a total sample of 114 was calculated with 38 patients per group.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis used inferential and descriptive statistics. Mann Whitney U test was applied to compare sample means between 02 independent groups as the dependent variable was either ordinal or continuous, but not normally distributed. Tukey Kramer’s HSD (Honest Significant Difference) test, which is a single-step multiple comparison procedure and statistical test, was applied to assess the significance of variations between pairs of group means. Advantage of using this test is to keep the level of the Type I error (i.e., finding a difference when none exists) equal to the chosen alpha level and also to allow the computation of confidence intervals for the differences between the means. The Kruskal – Wallis test was used to evaluate the significance of variations between pairs of group medians. This test was used for the purpose of comparison for the outcomes of three non-identical groups.

The P-value was considered significant at a confidence level of 95%. Continuous (real- valued) parameters were noted as mean ± SD (Standard Deviation) and categorical parameters were presented as percentage (%) and number. SPSS 24.0 software was taken into account for “statistical analysis”.

Results

A total of 114 patients were evaluated for eligibility and recruited for the study. Patients were then allocated randomly into Group I (n=38) using I-Gel, Group II (n=38) using Ambu AuraGain, and Group III (n=38) using Baska Mask. One patient of Group I and 03 patients of each Group II and Group III underwent endotracheal intubation & were excluded from the analysis.

Demographic characteristics of all patients were revealed in Table 1. There was no statistically substantial variation between the 03 groups regarding confounding factors like age, sex, ASA class & BMI.

 

Table 1: Intergroup Comparison of Demographic Profile

Characteristics

Group I (n=38)

Group II (n=38)

Group III (n=38)

ANOVA

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

F

‘p’

Age (years)

44.24

13.00

47.68

13.68

44.00

12.38

0.951

0.389

Weight (kg)

69.03

6.64

72.45

6.30

71.66

6.37

2.943

0.057

BMI (kg/m 2 )

24.32

3.28

24.21

2.83

23.84

3.17

0.245

0.783

Gender

Number

%

Number

%

Number

%

F

‘p’

Female

23

60.5

23

60.5

19

50.0

1.145

0.564

Male

15

39.5

15

39.5

19

50.0

ASA Grade

Number

%

Number

%

Number

%

F

‘p’

Grade I

24

63.2

20

52.6

18

47.4

1.980

0.372

Grade II

14

36.8

18

47.4

20

52.6

BMI: Body Mass Index, ASA: American Society of Anaesthesiologists, P<0.05 was considered significant.

 

In all the positions (neutral, maximum flexion, maximum extension, right rotation), maximum OLP was observed in Group II and minimum OLP was observed in Group I (Table 2). As concerned for the type of positions, maximum OLP was noticed in the flexion position, and minimum OLP was noticed in the extension position in all three devices.

 

Table 2: Comparison of Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure (OLP) in Different Positions

Intergroup Comparison (ANOVA)

Position

Group (n=37)

Group II (n=35)

Group III (n=35)

ANOVA

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

F

‘p’

Neutral

28.05

3.02

34.94

3.22

30.20

4.34

34.983

<0.001

Flexion

31.65

3.43

36.74

3.02

33.91

4.55

16.895

<0.001

Extension

23.81

3.84

31.57

3.63

25.97

4.38

36.527

<0.001

Right rotation

27.81

2.89

34.69

3.42

29.40

4.18

37.138

<0.001

Between Group Comparison (Tukey Kramer’s HSD)

Position

Group I vs II

Group I vs III

Group II vs III

Mean Diff

SE

‘p’

Mean Diff

SE

‘p’

Mean Diff

SE

‘p’

Neutral

-6.89

0.84

<0.001

-2.15

0.84

0.032

4.74

0.85

<0.001

Flexion

-5.09

0.88

<0.001

-2.27

0.88

0.030

2.83

0.89

0.005

Extension

-7.76

0.93

<0.001

-2.16

0.93

0.058

5.60

0.95

<0.001

Right Rotation

-6.87

0.83

<0.001

-1.59

0.83

0.140

5.29

0.84

<0.001

P<0.05 was considered significant.

 

‘Between-group differences’ of OLP in different positions showed that in all the positions Group II had significantly higher OLP than Group I and III (Table 2). Between Group I and Group III, significant differences in OLP were observed in neutral (p=0.032) and maximum flexion (p=0.030) positions only. The ventilation score of all the patients in all the positions was 3.

Median Brimacombe score of all patients of the three groups was 3 in all the positions except at maximum extension in Group I, where we observed median Brimacombe score of 4 (Table 3). On comparing the ‘between-group differences’ of Brimacombe score, these differences were not significant at any of the positions (Table 3).

Expiratory tidal volume remained constant in all the positions (Table 4). However, the ‘peak airway pressure’ of Group II was significantly greater than that of Group I and III in all positions (Table 4). LAW-PAW of Group II was highest followed by that of Group III and a minimum of Group I. These differences in LAW-PAW of all three groups were significant (p<0.05) in all the positions (Table 4).

 

Table 3: Comparison of Brimacombe Score in Different Positions

Intergroup Comparison (Kruskal-Wallis test)

Position

Group I (n=37)

Group II (n=35)

Group III (n=35)

Kruskal-Wallis test

Mdn/Mean

SD

Mdn/Mean

SD

Mdn/Mean

SD

H

‘p’

Neutral

3.00/3.03

0.87

3.00/2.89

0.83

3.00/2.94

0.87

0.748

0.688

Flexion

3.00/2.84

0.76

3.00/2.71

0.83

3.00/2.74

0.95

0.723

0.697

Extension

4.00/3.27

0.90

3.00/3.14

0.81

3.00/3.06

0.87

1.597

0.450

Right Rotation

3.00/3.03

0.87

3.00/2.91

0.82

3.00/2.94

0.87

0.574

0.751

Between Group Comparison (Mann Whitney U test)

Position

Group I vs II

Group I vs III

Group II vs III

Z

‘p’

Z

‘p’

Z

‘p’

Neutral

0.879

0.379

0.558

0.577

0.218

0.827

Flexion

0.887

0.375

0.564

0.573

0.136

0.892

Extension

0.904

0.366

1.188

0.235

0.394

0.694

Right Rotation

0.743

0.458

0.558

0.577

0.075

0.940

Mdn - Median

P<0.05 was considered significant.

 

Table 4: Intergroup Comparison of Ventilatory Parameters in Different Positions

Position

Group I (n=37)

Group II (n=35)

Group III (n=35)

ANOVA

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

F

‘p’

Expiratory Tidal Volume

Neutral

685.68

64.36

720.29

65.01

705.71

69.04

2.491

0.088

Flexion

685.68

64.36

720.29

65.01

705.71

69.04

2.491

0.088

Extension

685.68

64.36

720.29

65.01

705.71

69.04

2.491

0.088

Right Rotation

685.68

64.36

720.29

65.01

705.71

69.04

2.491

0.088

Peak Airway Pressure

Neutral

19.22

1.92

21.03

1.54

19.49

1.27

13.172

<0.001

Flexion

21.78

2.41

23.20

2.72

21.17

2.37

6.066

0.003

Extension

17.54

2.05

18.69

1.55

18.14

1.59

3.853

0.024

Right Rotation

19.65

2.19

20.74

1.38

19.40

1.80

5.369

0.006

End Tidal Carbon Dioxide

Neutral

37.08

1.06

36.83

1.20

37.34

1.06

1.886

0.157

Flexion

37.43

1.09

37.26

1.40

38.03

1.12

3.910

0.023

Extension

36.70

1.08

36.20

0.93

36.60

1.14

2.255

0.110

Right Rotation

36.92

0.98

36.77

0.91

36.89

0.99

0.230

0.795

Leak Airway Pressure- Peak Airway Pressure (LAW-PAW)

Neutral

8.84

3.15

13.94

3.46

10.71

3.87

19.514

<0.001

Flexion

10.03

4.71

13.83

3.98

12.74

4.25

7.395

0.001

Extension

6.32

4.06

12.83

3.91

7.83

3.97

26.019

<0.001

Right Rotation

8.11

3.32

13.94

3.68

10.03

3.85

24.160

<0.001

P<0.05 was considered significant.

 

‘Between-group differences’ of expiratory tidal volume did not show any significant difference in all the positions (Table 5). Peak airway pressure of Group II was significantly greater than that of Group I and Group III in all the positions except in maximum extension (p=0.40). EtCO2 of the three groups was comparable in all the positions except in maximum flexion (Table 5). Group III had significantly higher EtCO2 than Group II in maximal flexion (p=0.024).

On comparing the ‘between-group differences’, Group I and Group III had comparable LAW-PAW in all the positions except in maximum flexion (p=0.024). LAW-PAW of Group II was significantly greater than Group I in all the positions (Table 5). Group III had significantly less LAW-PAW than Group II at neutral, maximum extension and right rotation positions (Table 5).

 

Table 5: Between

Position

Group I vs II

Group I vs III

Group II vs III

Mean diff.

SE

‘p’

Mean diff.

SE

‘p’

Mean diff.

SE

‘p’

Expiratory Tidal Volume

Neutral

-34.61

15.59

0.073

-20.04

15.59

0.407

14.57

15.81

0.628

Flexion

-34.61

15.59

0.073

-20.04

15.59

0.407

14.57

15.81

0.628

Extension

-34.61

15.59

0.073

-20.04

15.59

0.407

14.57

15.81

0.628

Right Rotation

-34.61

15.59

0.073

-20.04

15.59

0.407

14.57

15.81

0.628

Peak Airway Pressure

Neutral

-1.81

0.38

<0.001

-0.27

0.38

0.757

1.54

0.38

<0.001

Flexion

-1.42

0.59

0.047

0.61

0.59

0.555

2.03

0.60

0.003

Extension

-1.15

0.41

0.018

-0.60

0.41

0.315

0.54

0.42

0.400

Right Rotation

-1.09

0.43

0.033

0.25

0.43

0.833

1.34

0.44

0.008

End Tidal Carbon Dioxide

Neutral

0.25

0.26

0.599

-0.26

0.26

0.577

-0.51

0.26

0.132

Flexion

0.18

0.29

0.813

-0.60

0.29

0.098

-0.77

0.29

0.024

Extension

0.50

0.25

0.112

0.10

0.25

0.910

-0.40

0.25

0.256

Right Rotation

0.15

0.23

0.793

0.03

0.23

0.988

-0.11

0.23

0.873

Leak Airway Pressure- Peak Airway Pressure (LAW-PAW)

Neutral

-5.11

0.82

<0.001

-1.88

0.82

0.064

3.23

0.84

0.001

Flexion

-3.80

1.02

0.001

-2.72

1.02

0.024

1.09

1.04

0.548

Extension

-6.50

0.94

<0.001

-1.50

0.94

0.250

5.00

0.95

<0.001

Right Rotation

-5.83

0.85

<0.001

-1.92

0.85

0.067

3.91

0.86

<0.001

P<0.05 was considered significant.

 

Discussion

Considering the fact that airway devices as well as head positioning could affect the performance of an airway device, the current analysis was planned to compare the OLPs, ventilator score, and fiberoptic view of glottis of three SADs, viz.I-gel, Ambu AuraGain and Baska mask, in different positions of head and neck, such as extension, flexion, neutral and right rotation.

In the present study, for all three devices, OLP was minimum in the extension position and maximum in the flexion position. Amongst the three devices, Ambu AuraGain tended to have significantly the highest leak pressure and I-gel tended to have significantly the lowest OLP. The maximum difference in leak pressure was seen between I-gel and Ambu AuraGain for the extension position while the minimum difference was seen between Baska mask and I-gel for the right rotation position. Extension position traditionally has been reported to have minimum OLP while flexion position has been reported to generate maximum OLP for different supraglottic devices. Sanuki et al also found that leak pressure was lower in the extension position (23.0 ± 4.2 cm H2O, P=0.015) and was higher in the flexion position (28.5 ± 3.4 cm H2O, P=0.015) in comparison to neutral position while using I-gel in paralyzed patients planned for oral surgery 13. They also found neutral and rotation positions to lie in between these two extremes as observed in the present study. Similar observations were also made by other workers for different devices used 10161718.

In the present study, we found leak pressure to be significantly higher in Ambu AuraGain than in I-gel and Baska mask in different positions. Similar to these findings, Pradeep et al also found Ambu AuraGain to have significantly greater leak pressure as compared to I-gel 19. In the present study, though we did not find a significant variation between I-gel and Baska mask groups w.r.t. leak pressure in extension and right rotation positions, however, for neutral and flexion positions Baska mask had significantly higher leak pressure as compared to I-gel. Thus, in relative terms, Ambu

AuraGain offered maximum leak pressure followed by Baska mask and I-gel respectively. There is limited literature showing the comparison between efficacy of Baska mask and of Ambu AuraGain, however, many studies have compared i-gel with Baska mask and found Baska mask to be better than I-gel 618.

The better performance of Ambu AuraGain over the other two devices could be attributed to its special curved design that conforms better to the anatomy of the airway. The wider size of the airway tube and prominence of the posterior cuff provide a more tighter and consistent perilaryngeal seal with Ambu AuraGain. However, this better performance of Ambu AuraGain could be dependent on the patient's age too. Kim et al 20 in their study on young pediatric patients compared I-gel and Ambu AuraGain and found OLP to be significantly higher in I-gel as compared to Ambu AuraGain which is in contrast with the findings of the present study. However comparative studies between I- gel and Ambu AuraGain conducted in adults show results similar to that obtained in the present study 1921. One of the reasons for age-dependent differences in the performance of Ambu AurGain could be the anatomical differences in the airways of children and adults.

In the present study, all the patients in all three groups had a ventilation score of 3 irrespective of the head-neck position. Findings of the analysis showed that despite slight differences in leak pressure among the three groups, all of them provided safe airway and had a stable airway profile at all head and neck positions.

No significant differences among the three SADs were observed from a visualization point of view at different head and neck positions. SADs are known to have the least interference with the laryngeal view owing to their extraglottic nature. None of the previous studies have reported visualization issues with any of the three SADs being evaluated in this study.

The expiratory tidal volume remained stable in each group irrespective of position. Peak airway pressure also showed similar trends as observed for OLP, both with respect to head and neck positions and intergroup differences. Ambu AuraGain had significantly higher peak airway pressure as compared to I-gel and Baska mask for flexion, neutral, and rotation positions. Nevertheless, the high leak pressure of Ambu AuraGain was advantageous for the achievement of comparable ventilation, in spite of high peak airway pressure.

In the present study, end-tidal CO2 levels in general remained well-controlled and did not show any significant intergroup or inter-head and neck position difference except for a difference between Ambu AuraGain and Baska mask for flexion position with mean value in the Ambu AuraGain group being significantly lower than in Baska mask group. On reviewing the related literature, we did not find any study reporting the effect of SGA devices on the end-tidal CO2 levels at different head and neck positions and may set aside this finding as an incidental finding only that needs further exploration in subsequent studies.

The findings of our analysis should be contemplated in the light of a few limitations. First, the investigator involved in the insertion and removal of the device could not be blinded. As all the determined parameters have been clearly described in the study, findings were unlikely to have skewed owing to unblinding. Secondly, other considerations such as ease of insertion, number of attempts, and adverse effects were not taken into consideration. More studies to corroborate and validate the findings of the present study are recommended.

Conclusion

We conclude that Ambu AuraGain is the most suitable airway device for supraglottic airway management owing to its better anatomical adaptation resulting in a better seal as compared to I-gel and Baska mask. The performance of I-gel and Baska mask was almost comparable but Baska mask had a slight edge over I-gel. However, inspite of differences in OLP, the ventilatory performance of the three devices was not significantly affected. Since the present study is one of the first studies comparing the performance of these three supraglottic airway devices, results should be warranted in further studies for verification and validation.

References

  1. Dhanda A, Singh S, Bhalotra AR, Chavali S. Clinical Comparison of I-Gel Supraglottic Airway Device and Cuffed Endotracheal Tube for Pressure-Controlled Ventilation During Routine Surgical ProceduresTurkish Journal of Anesthesia and Reanimation2017;45(5):270276. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2017.44711
  2. Timmermann A, Bergner UA, Russo SG. Laryngeal mask airway indications: new frontiers for second-generation supraglottic airwaysCurr Opin Anaesthesiol2015;28(6):717743. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000262
  3. Singh A, Lalit G. Supraglottic Airway Devices: A Knock of FutureAnaesthesia & Critical Care Medicine Journal2018;3(1):17. Available from: https://medwinpublishers.com/ACCMJ/ACCMJ16000129.pdf
  4. Choi SR, Lee TY, Kim SW, Park SY, Chung CJ, Kim JH. Comparison of clinical performance of i-gelⓇ and Baska MaskⓇ during laparoscopic cholecystectomyKorean Journal of Anesthesiology2019;72(6):576582. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.19195
  5. Theiler L, Gutzmann M, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Urwyler N, Kaempfen B, Greif R. i-gel™ supraglottic airway in clinical practice: a prospective observational multicentre studyBritish Journal of Anaesthesia2012;109(6):990995. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes309
  6. Zaballos M, Escribá F, López S, Zaballos J, Montero J, Fernández I. A multicenter and observational study of the Ambu AuraGain laryngeal mask in adult patientsRev Esp Anestesiol Reanim (Engl Ed)2021;68(2):7381. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redar.2020.08.014
  7. Kim MSS, Park JH, Lee KYY, Choi SH, Jung HH, Kim JHS, et al. Influence of head and neck position on the performance of supraglottic airway devices: A systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE2019;14(5):e0216673. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216673
  8. Kim HJ, Lee K, Bai S, Kim MH, Oh E, Yoo YC. Influence of head and neck position on ventilation using the air-Q® SP airway in anaesthetized paralysed patients: a prospective randomized crossover studyBritish Journal of Anaesthesia2017;118(3):452457. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew448
  9. Kim JT, Jeon SY, Kim CS, Kim SD, Kim HS. Alternative method for predicting optimal insertion depth of the laryngeal tube in childrenBritish Journal of Anaesthesia2007;99(5):704707. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aem241
  10. Sanuki T, Uda R, Sugioka S, Daigo E, Son H, Akatsuka M, et al. The influence of head and neck position on ventilation with the i-gel airway in paralysed, anaesthetised patientsEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology2011;28(8):597599. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0b013e32834698f4
  11. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Pühringer F. A Fibreoptic Scoring System to Assess the Position of Laryngeal Mask Airway Devices. Interobserver Variability and a Comparison Between the Standard, Flexible and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airwaysains · Anästhesiologie · Intensivmedizin · Notfallmedizin · Schmerztherapie2000;35(11):692694. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-8164
  12. Jain D, Ghai B, Bala I, Gandhi K, Banerjee G. Evaluation of I‐gel™ airway in different head and neck positions in anesthetized paralyzed childrenPediatric Anesthesia2015;25(12):12481253. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.12748
  13. Pradeep MS, Nandanwankar NK, Lahane PV, Memon NY, Yennawar SD, Pathak RG. A Randomised comparison and evaluation of I-gel, Supreme laryngeal mask airway and Ambu Auragain in Laparoscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia with controlled ventilationAsian Journal of Medical Sciences2021;12(4):6875. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v12i4.32931
  14. Kim HJJ, Park HSS, Kim SYJ, Ro YJJ, Yang HSS, Koh WU. A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Ambu AuraGain and i-gel in Young Pediatric PatientsJournal of Clinical Medicine2019;8(8):1235. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8081235
  15. Lakshmi TC, Tiwari T, Agrawal J, Kapoor R, Vasanthakumar V. Comparison of the clinical performance of the i-gelTM, LMA SupremeTM, and Ambu AuraGainTM in adult patients during general anesthesia: a prospective and randomized studyKorean Journal of Anesthesiology2022;75(4):316322. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.21212

DON'T MISS OUT!

Subscribe now for latest articles and news.