Paediatric anaesthesia
-
Paediatric anaesthesia · Aug 2015
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyComparison of air-Q and Ambu Aura-i for controlled ventilation in infants: a randomized controlled trial.
The air-Q is a new supraglottic airway device (SAD) and has been increasingly used as a primary airway device and as a conduit for tracheal intubation in children as well as in adults. This device has either performed equally or better than other SADs in children. The Ambu Aura-i is a commonly used SAD in children undergoing various short surgical procedures. However, limited literature is available evaluating the safety and efficacy of the air-Q and the Ambu Aura-i in small children. We, therefore, conducted this study to compare the clinical performance of these two airway devices in infants weighing up to 10 kg. Our hypothesis is that air-Q, due to its improved and larger cuff design will yield better airway seal pressures as compared with the Ambu Aura-i. ⋯ We conclude that air-Q may be considered superior to Ambu Aura-i in infants for controlled ventilation as it provides higher airway sealing pressures.
-
Paediatric anaesthesia · Aug 2015
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative StudyA randomized multi-institutional crossover comparison of the GlideScope(®) Cobalt Video laryngoscope to the flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope in a Pierre Robin manikin.
The GlideScope Cobalt Video laryngoscope is being used more often in children with challenging laryngoscopy. There are, however, no pediatric trials comparing it to flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy, the current accepted gold standard. This preliminary manikin study compares the first-attempt intubation success of the GlideScope Cobalt video laryngoscope to the flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope when performed by attending pediatric anesthesiologists at two major pediatric centers. ⋯ There was no difference in first-attempt success of tracheal intubation using VL vs fiberoptic bronchoscopy when performed by attending anesthesiologists at two large pediatric centers. However, institutional differences exist in success rates with VL across the two centers. Results from single-center device evaluations should be verified by multi-center evaluations. A significant proportion of attending anesthesiologists lack experience with advanced airway devices; targeted education may enhance intubation success and patient safety.