DR MANOJ A (POST GRADUATE),DR RUBA VIKNESH (SENIOR RESIDENT),DR LATHA N (PROFESSOR ANESTHESIA) ,DR YACHENDRA (PROFESSOR ANESTHESIA)
DOI: https://doi.org/Background: Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) have transformed airway management with the introduction of uniform, noninvasive pathways of ventilation with fewer complications usually associated with endotracheal intubation [1]. Among these, the I-gel, I-gel Plus, and Baska masks are favored because of their easy insertion technique, low pharyngeal injury risk, and superior sealing quality. Robust comparative evidence in the literature on oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), a key parameter of airway sealing efficiency, for the three devices does not exist.
Methods: This randomized-managed trial included a hundred and twenty person patients (ASA physical reputation I–II) present process widespread anesthesia for non-compulsory surgeries. participants were randomly allotted to one among 3 organizations (I-gel, I-gel Plus, Baska), with forty sufferers in each group. The primary endpoint become the size of the oropharyngeal leak pressure at standardized tidal volumes. Secondary effects protected ease of insertion, number of insertion tries, and incidence of complications, which includes sore throat or tool displacement. Statistical analyses were carried out the usage of one-manner ANOVA for continuous variables and chi-square take a look at for categorical variables (p < zero.05 considered statistically great).
Results: The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure varied significantly between the three devices, with the Baska mask having the highest mean OLP when compared to I-gel and I-gel Plus (p < 0.05). Insertion times were similar between the groups, though the Baska took slightly more insertions on average. The overall rates of complications were low, with no severe adverse events in any group.
Conclusion: Our results suggest that the Baska mask can offer greater sealing efficiency, as indicated by greater OLP, whereas I-gel and I-gel Plus have comparable results in terms of ease of insertion and incidence of minor complications. Further multicenter trials are needed to confirm these results and investigate possible advantages in specific patient groups.
