Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 17682

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : April | Volume : 18 | Issue : 4 | Page : UC41 - UC45 Full Version

Clinical Efficacy of Ambu AuraGain™ and i-gel® in Patients undergoing Elective Gynaecological Laparoscopic Surgeries under General Anaesthesia: A Randomised Clinical Study


Published: April 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/67733.19323
Shiny Priyadarshini Aarumulla, Vijetha Devaram, N Jayanth Medithala, Hrudayesh Adini, Prabhavathi Ravipati, Krishna Chaitanya Kandukuri

1. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, MNR Medical College, Sangareddy, Telangana, India. 4. Postgraduate Student, Department of Anaesthesiology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 5. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 6. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Vijetha Devaram,
2nd Floor, Morton Block, General Hospital, Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Nellore-524002, Andhra Pradesh, India.
E-mail: vijethadevaram@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Second-generation supraglottic airway devices that provide high seal pressures are found to be suitable for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, as they have a separate port for gastric tube insertion, effectively separating the airway and the oesophagus. The present study compares the usage of two such second-generation supraglottic devices- AuraGain™ and i-gel® in patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries.

Aim: To compare the Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure (OLP) and airway pressures achieved by the i-gel® and Ambu AuraGain™ after insertion in the supine position and during laparoscopic carbon dioxide peritoneum in the Trendelenburg position.

Materials and Methods: This randomised clinical, single-blinded study conducted at the Department of Anaesthesiology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India involved 100 female patients undergoing elective gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. The primary objective was to compare the clinical performance of Ambu AuraGain™ (Group-A) and i-gel® (Group-I) concerning their oropharyngeal seal pressures and airway pressures in gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries. The secondary outcomes measured included the time taken for insertion, ease of insertion of the device, effects on postinsertion haemodynamic parameters like heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, ease of gastric tube insertion, and fibreoptic bronchoscopic grading of the visualised glottic structures after device placement, as well as postoperative side effects like blood staining upon removal of the device and sore throat. Data were analysed using Student’s t-test and chi-square test.

Results: The mean age in Group-A was 39.62±4.085 years, and in Group-I, it was 39.48±2.468 years. The mean peak inspiratory pressures after device insertion were 14.34 mmHg in Group-A and 16.66 mmHg in Group-I. Haemodynamic parameters postinsertion were similar in both groups {Group-A: Mean Heart Rate (HR) 87.22 bpm, Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) 89.72 mmHg, Oxygen Saturation (SpO2) 99.58%; Group-I: Mean HR 87.50 bpm, MAP 89.72 mmHg, SpO2 99.72%). Fibreoptic bronchoscopic grading in Group-A was 0/0/9/41, and in Group-I, it was 0/0/11/39. Blood staining upon removal was noted in four patients (8%) in Group-A and in 3 patients (6%) in Group-I. Sore throat in the postoperative period was noted in 14% of patients in Group-A and 8% in Group-I.

Conclusion: Ambu AuraGain™ was found to provide a better seal and higher OLP compared to the i-gel® in gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries and therefore provide safer and more effective ventilation for patients undergoing such surgeries. I-gel® was found to be easier and quicker to insert than the AuraGain™.

Keywords

Laproscopy, Laryngeal mask, Supraglottic devices, Trendelenburg position

Patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic procedures are at a higher risk of aspiration because of the increase in intra-abdominal pressure and the head-down position (1). The use of second-generation supraglottic airway devices with a gastric emptying tube in such surgeries is becoming popularity. They are easy to insert and provide sufficient seal pressure in the Trendelenburg position; hence, they can be considered as an alternative to endotracheal tubes (2).

The i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd., UK), a second-generation supraglottic airway device developed by Dr. Nasir in 2007, provides an effective seal because of its latex-free medical-grade thermoplastic elastomer (styrene ethylene butadiene styrene), which is soft and gel-like, designed to anatomically fit the perilaryngeal and hypolaryngeal structures without an inflatable cuff. The device stem features a gastric port for drainage, a bite guard to enhance patency, and a wide buccal cavity stabiliser to prevent dislodgement of the device position. Many studies have established its safety and efficiency in laparoscopic surgeries [3,4] and in the Trendelenburg position (5).

Ambu AuraGain™ (AMBU Ballerup, Denmark) is a single-use second-generation supraglottic airway device introduced in June 2015, made of polyvinyl chloride. It is phthalate-free, anatomically curved to follow the human airway, with an integrated gastric access port featuring a low-friction inner surface for easier tube placement. It includes an integrated bite block, a wider airway tube which provides an intubation conduit for the standard endotracheal tube if tracheal intubation is necessary intraoperatively. The inflatable cuff provides high seal pressure. A pilot balloon indicates device size and serves as a tactile cuff pressure indicator. Navigation marks guide the flexible scope (6).

To the best of the authors knowledge, after an extensive literature search, the present is the first study to compare Ambu AuraGain™ with the i-gel® for gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries. The present study aimed to compare the clinical performance of the second-generation Ambu AuraGain™ with the second-generation i-gel® in gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries.

Material and Methods

This was a randomised clinical, single-blinded study involving 100 female patients. The study took place at the Department of Anaesthesiology, Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India, between April 2022 and July 2022. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained (IEC/NMC/15/02/2022_11), and the trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2022/03/041043). Written informed consent was taken from all patients included in the study.

Inclusion criteria: The authors included 100 female patients of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II, aged between 18 and 70 years, weighing between 30-70 kg, posted for elective gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries (laparoscopic tubectomy, cystectomy, hysterectomy) under general anaesthesia in the study after thorough history taking and clinical examination.

Exclusion criteria: All patients of ASA III and IV, BMI >30 g/m2, age <18 years, hiatus hernia, gastroesophageal reflux, patients with a difficult airway (based on a history of difficult airway, inter-incisor distance <20 mm, cervical spine pathology, modified Mallampati class 4, or thyromental distance <65 mm), respiratory tract pathology, preoperative sore throat, or a planned operation time >4 hours, chronic lung disease, and pathology of the neck or upper respiratory tract were excluded.

Sample size calculation: The primary outcome measure was Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure (OLP). For acquiring 80% power with a 5% type I error, the research needed to include a minimum of 76 patients (i.e., 38 in each group), as this would allow it to achieve a level of minimum clinical significance as in a similar study (6). In the current study, the authors included a total of 100 patients (50 in each group), and the data were collected, tabulated in Excel sheets, and analysed.

Study Procedure

Patients were randomised into two groups (Table/Fig 1): ‘Group-A (Ambu AuraGain™)’ or Group-I (i-gel®) using a closed envelope method. Investigators opened sealed opaque envelopes that concealed group allocation. Patients were blinded to their group allocation. The size of the airway device was chosen following the manufacturers’ recommendations. Patients were positioned supine on the operating table, with the head resting on a gel head ring. Standard monitoring was instituted before the induction of anaesthesia, i.e., pulse oximetry, electrocardiograph, and non invasive blood pressure. Preoxygenation was carried out with high-flow oxygen for three minutes before induction of anaesthesia with intravenous (i.v.) fentanyl 1-2 μg/kg and propofol 2-3 mg/kg. Cisatracurium 0.1-0.2 mg/kg i.v. was given. The patient was ventilated for three minutes, and Ambu AuraGain™ and i-gel® were inserted. The insertion of the supraglottic airway device was done by an experienced anaesthesiologist of 10 years. The airway device was well-lubricated with a water-based lubricant and inserted by a standard method. If encountered difficulty after the 1st insertion attempt, alternate maneuvers were employed, like gentle pushing or pulling of the device, chin lift, jaw thrust, head extension, or neck flexion, and after two failed attempts, the patient would be intubated and excluded from the study. Ease of insertion is graded as: 1) easy; 2) somewhat difficult (when deep rotation and jaw thrust); and 3) difficult. (A second attempt was used for proper device insertion). The appearance of the first square waveform on the capnograph indicates satisfactory device placement for effective ventilation; otherwise, the supraglottic airway was taken out and re-inserted. The time taken for insertion was noted from the moment the airway device entered the mouth until the first upstroke on the End-tidal Carbon Dioxide (ETCO2) waveform. The cuff in Ambu AuraGain™ was inflated, and intra-cuff pressure was set at 60 cm H2O using a handheld aneroid cuff pressure monitor, and the OLP was determined by closing the expiratory valve of the circle system at a fixed gas flow of three litres per minute and noting the airway pressure (maximum allowed was 40 cm H2O). The pressure at which the audible sound of gas escaping was heard using a stethoscope, which was placed laterally to the thyroid cartilage, was noted as OLP (7). It was recorded soon after insertion and after one hour of gas insufflation in the Trendelenburg position.

Preinsertion hemodynamics and postinsertion hemodynamics after device placement were noted, and peak inspiratory pressures after insertion were noted. A gastric tube was inserted depending on the size of the device used after adequate lubrication with a water-based solution through the gastric port in Ambu AuraGain™ and i-gel®. The ease of insertion of the gastric tube was graded as grade 1-easy or grade 2-difficult. Anaesthesia was maintained with O2, air, and sevoflurane 1-2%. Controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 6-8 mL/kg/minute was done. A fibreoptic bronchoscope was used to view the anatomical position of the airway device in the larynx. The image from the tip was captured at the end of the airway device. The Brimacombe score grading (8) was done where Grade-1: no laryngeal structure seen, Grade-2: vocal cords anterior structure is visible, Grade-3: vocal cord and posterior structure are visible, and Grade-4: only vocal cords are seen. After one hour in the Trendelenburg position, OLPs and peak inspiratory pressures were noted. In the present study, pneumoperitoneum and abdominal insufflation pressures were maintained below 15 mmHg at all times by the surgeons. The patient was reversed at the end of the surgery with Inj. myopyrollate (neostigmine 0.5 mg+glycopyrollate 0.4 mg). They were followed-up for 12 hours. Any side effects like sore throat, cough, hoarseness, dysphonia, and other complaints were noted.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 (SPSS for Windows 15.0, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for all statistical analyses. For continuous data, descriptive statistics such as the mean and standard deviation were calculated. For discrete/categorical data, percentages were generated, and the Chi-square test was carried out to test significance. An overall p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The data concerning demographic profile parameters like age, BMI, Mallampati Score, ASA physical status grade, and duration of surgery were analysed between the two groups and were found to be similar (Table/Fig 2). The preinsertion and postinsertion haemodynamics parameters (Table/Fig 3) like heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and saturation parameters three minutes after insertion were comparable between the two groups. The mean time for insertion in Group-I was 15.96 seconds, which was less compared to Group-A where the mean insertion time was 22.48 seconds. Ease of insertion (Table/Fig 4) was graded as easier in Group-I (40/10/0) compared to Group-A (19/31/0). The ease of insertion of the gastric tube through the gastric port was graded and found to be easier in Group-A (41/9) compared to Group-I (23/27). This difference was statistically significant. Fibreoptic bronchoscopy (Table/Fig 4) was done to view the position of the airway device in the larynx. The Brimacombe grading for Group-A was (0/0/9/41) and for Group-I was (0/0/11/39).

The OLP (Table/Fig 5) was measured immediately after the insertion of the airway device when the patient was in the supine position. The mean OLP was higher in Group-A (32.82) compared to Group-I (27.42). One hour after insertion, the OLP remained higher in Group-A (35.44) than in Group-I (30.32). Peak inspiratory pressures (Table/Fig 5) were noted after device insertion and found to be lower in Group-A (14.34) than in Group-I (16.66). After one hour in the Trendelenburg position, peak inspiratory pressures were 24.34 for Group-A and 26.18 for Group-I. In Group-A, 4 (8%) patients showed bloodstains on removal, and 7 (14%) patients experienced sore throat. In Group-I, 3 (6%) patients showed bloodstains on removal, and 4 (8%) patients experienced sore throat (Table/Fig 6).

Discussion

The main finding of the present study was that AuraGain™ has a higher OLP in the supine position (soon after insertion) and during pneumoperitoneum in the Trendelenburg position compared to i-gel®, and lesser mean inspiratory.

An airway sealing pressure or ‘leak’ test is commonly performed with Supraglottic airway devices to quantify the efficacy of the seal with the airway. This value is important as it indicates the feasibility of positive pressure ventilation and the degree of airway protection from Supra-cuff soiling. It is also used to quantify the efficacy of airway sealing in supraglottic airway devices (7). The primary objective of the present study was to compare the OLP between the two groups. The mean OLP of Group-A was found to be 32.82 mm of H2O, and it increased to 35.44 mm of H2O after one hour with pneumoperitoneum and the Trendelenburg position. These results were similar to the study conducted by Lopez AM et al., (9), who compared the OLP of Ambu AuraGain™ with LMA Supreme™ in patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy. In their study, the OLP of AuraGain™ was found to be 34 cm of H2O, which is similar to the results in the present study. The high leak pressure of the Ambu AuraGain™ group is probably due to its wide proximal aperture that fits better for a good seal. The thinner, softer cuff of Ambu AuraGain™ provides a better seal on laryngeal structures (10). Also, in gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries, the partial body weight, cephalic visceral, and diaphragm pressure caused by the pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position may result in a tighter seal compared with the supine position (5). It may be possible that the airway undergoes a configuration change in the head-down position with carboperitoneum, yielding a slightly higher sealing pressure with the airway device (11).

In the study done by Lai CJ et al., where they evaluated the i-gel® in the Trendelenburg position, in the presence of pneumoperitoneum, they could not see any clinical signs associated with aspiration in the i-gel® group (5). They attributed this to the presence of the gastric channel in the device, which enables the release of pressure induced by abdominal insufflation and the head-down position during the perioperative period. The significance of the higher oropharyngeal seal pressure lies in the fact that it correlates to the efficacy of ventilation during carboperitoneum. During laparoscopy, the airway pressures increase due to gas insufflation of the abdomen and also due to the Trendelenburg position. If the airway pressures exceed the OLP, it may lead to pericuff leakage of air, which could result in inadequate ventilation and may potentially lead to gastric distension. This could possibly increase the risk of regurgitation, so the slightly higher OLPs offered by the AuraGain™ confer a better safety margin for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries in the Trendelenburg position (12).

In the present study, there was no statistical difference between preinsertion and postinsertion hemodynamics between the two groups. When comparing the time taken for insertion, for i-gel® it was 15 seconds, and the mean insertion time for Ambu AuraGain™ was prolonged in comparison, found to be 22 seconds. This was similar to the study conducted by Sharma B et al., who reported the mean insertion time for i-gel® as 14.33 seconds (13). The extra time required to inflate the cuff in the Ambu AuraGain™ group may have contributed to this difference. Wong DT et al., found that the insertion time was longer for the Ambu AuraGain™ when compared to LMA Supreme (14). In another study done by Shariffuddin II et al., it was reported that the Ambu AuraGain™ (33.4 seconds) took longer to obtain the first waveform on the capnograph. This was accounted for by the structural dissimilarity between the two devices, as the Ambu AuraGain™ has a slightly firmer tip and a bulky posterior curvature with a larger cuff to provide higher seal pressures (15).

When comparing the number of insertion attempts, they were increased in Group-A than in Group-I, which was similar to the study by Shariffuddin II et al., where the AuraGain™ was deemed subjectively harder to insert, with only 24/50 (48%) versus 37/50 (74%) of AuraGain™ insertions being scored 1 = easy (on a 5 point scale). This also correlates to the cadaveric study (10), which found that the harder tip of Ambu AuraGain™ is difficult to bend and less flexible as it hits the posterior wall before moving towards the perilaryngeal area (15). The bulky structure of Ambu AuraGain™ and large cuff further add to its difficulty in insertion (16) in comparison to Group-I.

Gastric tube insertion was found to be easier in Group-A compared to Group-I due to its smooth surface of the gastric port in AuraGain™, due to polyvinyl material, and also the width, which permits easy passage (17). It was more difficult to insert a well-lubricated 12-FG gastric tube into the i-gel® due to the smaller aperture of the gastric access port, and therefore this took longer (18).

Fibreoptic bronchoscopic confirmation and grading of the view were done using Brimacombe grading (7). Both groups had a median Brimacombe grading of 4 (cords visible) in both groups, and this was not statistically significant. This shows that it is possible to use these devices as an intubation conduit (19),(20). Although, the size 4 AuraGain™ would allow a slightly easier passage of a 7.5 mm ETT as its inner diameter is 12.7 mm compared to the size 4 i-gel® whose inner diameter is 12.3 mm (17).

The postoperative complications in Group-A included blood staining on removal seen in 4 (8%) of the patient population and sore throat present in 7 (14%). In the study by Shariffuddin II et al., the incidence of postoperative sore throat varied from 3-10% for the Ambu AuraGain™ and 0-38% for the LMA Supreme (15). In Group-I, blood staining on removal was seen in 3 (6%) and sore throat in 4 (8%). L’Hermite J et al., compared the incidence of sore throat following the insertion of three SADs (LMA Unique, LMA Supreme, and i-gel®) and reported that the incidence of sore throat was similar among the three devices (21). Jagannathan N et al., compared Ambu AuraGain™? and LMA® Supreme in infants and children and no complications were observed in both groups (22).

Limitation(s)

The present study was not done on difficult airway cases and included only procedures lasting for less than two hours. Obese patients were excluded from the present study. The authors did not measure the leak pressure at the end of surgery for either device.

Conclusion

Ambu AuraGain™ was found to be superior to the i-gel® in terms of providing slightly higher OLPs and lower airway pressures in gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries, thereby ensuring better ventilation. Its usage in such surgeries may provide a better safety margin for the patient. The AuraGain™ took slightly longer and was more difficult to insert, but this can be overcome by an experienced anaesthesiologist in an elective setting. The larger diameter of the AuraGain™ facilitated faster and smoother insertion of a gastric tube, and the larger size will permit smoother insertion.

References

1.
Asai T. Editorial II: Who is at increased risk of pulmonary aspiration? Br J Anaesth. 2004;93(4):497-500. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Mukadder S, Zekine B, Erdogan KG, Ulku O, Muharrem U, Saim Y, et al. Comparison of the proseal, supreme, and I-gel SAD in gynaecological laparoscopic surgeries. Scientific World Journal. 2015;2015:634320. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Park SK, Ko G, Choi GJ, Ahn EJ, Kang H. Comparison between supraglottic airway devices and endotracheal tubes in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(33):e4598. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
De Montblanc J, Ruscio L, Mazoit JX, Benhamou D. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel vs laryngeal mask airway in adults. Anaesthesia. 2014;69(10):1151-62. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Lai CJ, Liu CM, Wu CY, Tsai FF, Tseng PH, Fan SZ. I-Gel is a suitable alternative to endotracheal tubes in the laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum and trendelenburg position. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17(1):3. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Manisha MK, Bharadwaj AA, Kamath S. Comparing the effectiveness of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask airway with LMA® ProSeal™ in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries- AÂ randomised clinical trial. J Clin of Diagn Res. 2022;16(6):UC33-UC37. Available from: https://www.doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/56407/16481. [crossref]
7.
Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82(2):286-87. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fibreoptic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg. 1993;76(2):457.
9.
Lopez AM, Agusti M, Gambus P, Pons M, Anglada T, Valero R. A randomised comparison of the Ambu AuraGain versus the LMA supreme in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017;31(6):1255-62. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Lopez AM, Sala-Blanch X, Valero R, Prats A. Cross-over assessment of the Ambu Aura Gain, LMA supreme new cuff and intersurgical I-Gel in fresh cadavers. Open J Anesthesiol. 2014;4(12):332-39. [crossref]
11.
Greenland KB, Edwards MJ, Hutton NJ, Challis VJ, Irwin MG, Sleigh JW. Changes in airway configuration with different head and neck positions using magnetic resonance imaging of normal airways: A new concept with possible clinical applications. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105(5):683-90. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Zhang J, Drakeford PA, Ng V, Seng Z, Chua M, Tan N, et al. Ventilatory performance of AMBU® AuraGainTM and LMA® SupremeTM in laparoscopic surgery: A randomised controlled trial. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2021;49(5):395-403. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Sharma B, Sehgal R, Sahai C, Sood J. PLMA vs. I-gel: A comparative evaluation of respiratory mechanics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2010;26(4):451-57. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Wong DT, Ooi A, Singh KP, Dallaire A, Meliana V, Lau J, et al. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure between the Ambu® AuraGain™ and the LMA® Supreme™ supraglottic airways: A randomised-controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. 2018;65(7):797-805. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Shariffuddin II, Teoh WH, Tang E, Hashim N, Loh PS. Ambu® AuraGain™ versus LMA Supreme™ Second Seal™: A randomised controlled trial comparing oropharyngeal leak pressures and gastric drain functionality in spontaneously breathing patients. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2017;45(2):244-50. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
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 ventilation. Asian J Med Sci. 2021;12(4):68-75. [crossref]
17.
Sabuncu U, Kusderci HS, Oterkus M, Abdullayev R, Demir A, Uludag O, et al. AuraGain and i-Gel laryngeal masks in general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Performance characteristics and effects on hemodynamics. Saudi Med J. 2018;39(11):1082-89. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaya Z, Teo MM, Sia AT. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2010;65(12):1173-79. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Che Omar S, Hardy Mohamad Zaini R, Fui Wong T, Nazaruddin W Hassan WM. 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. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2021;53(3):241-45. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Choudhary N, Kumar A, Kohli A, Wadhawan S, Bhadoria P. I-Gel as an intubation conduit: Comparison of three different types of endotracheal tubes. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63(3):218-24.[crossref][PubMed]
21.
L’Hermite J, Dubout E, Bouvet S, Bracoud LH, Cuvillon P, Coussaye JE, et al. Sore throat following three adult supraglottic airway devices: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34(7):417-24. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Jagannathan N, Hajduk J, Sohn L, Huang A, Sawardekar A, Gebhardt ER, et al. A randomised comparison of the Ambu® AuraGain™ and the LMA® supreme in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2016;71(2):205-12.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/67733.19323

Date of Submission: Sep 28, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Dec 09, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Feb 17, 2024
Date of Publishing: Apr 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Sep 28, 2023
• Manual Googling: Dec 12, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Feb 15, 2024 (19%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 7

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com