Comparing Ambu AuraGain™ Disposable Laryngeal Mask with i-gel™ as a conduit for fibreoptic guided tracheal intubation for elective surgery under general anaesthesia in adult patients

Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) have emerged as an alternative for airway management, serving as conduits for tracheal intubation with fibreoptic bronchoscopy (FOB). In this study, we aim to compare the efficacy of two SADs for FOB guided tracheal intubation in adult patients undergoing elective surgery. 120 patients were randomly assigned to two groups Group A (i-gel™) or Group B (Ambu AuraGain™ Disposable Laryngeal Mask). The ease of insertion, time for successful placement, number of attempts, need for manipulation, time for FOB intubation and laryngeal view were recorded. The first pass success rate of intubation through either SAD was 100% (p = 1). Group A had a significantly higher ease of insertion score of 1 than Group B (63.33% vs 38.33%, p = 0.003). The time required for successful placement of the device was significantly longer in Group B than in Group A (17.44 ± 5.46 s vs13.62 ± 4.67 s, p = 0.001). The mean ± SD of time for FOB guided intubation(seconds) in group A was 66.59 ± 21.42 which was significantly higher as compared to group B (55.93 ± 19.79) (p value = 0.005). Conclusion: Our study compared i-gel™ and Ambu AuraGain™ for FOB-guided tracheal intubation and found both SADs equally effective with similar laryngeal views. Despite i-gel's superior ease of insertion, shorter time for insertion and fewer airway manipulations for insertion, Ambu AuraGain™ exhibited a shorter intubation time. Incidences of intraoperative and postoperative complications were comparable. Clinicians should choose the SAD based on preference and familiarity. •i-gel™ showed 63.33% ease of insertion vs. Ambu AuraGain™ (38.33%), showing i-gel™'s ease for fibreoptic guided intubation.•Ambu AuraGain™ (Group B) took 17.44 ± 5.46 s vs. i-gel™ (Group A) at 13.62 ± 4.67 s for placement. Group B (46.67%) needed more manipulation than Group A (26.67%).•Both devices had similar first-attempt intubation success rates, but i-gel™ and Ambu AuraGain™ differed in ease of use and procedural efficiency.