Comparsion Of Two Techniques Of Securing Airway using supra-glottic devices.
Not Applicable
- Conditions
- Health Condition 1: O- Medical and Surgical
- Registration Number
- CTRI/2023/07/054907
- Lead Sponsor
- SURBHI SETHI
- Brief Summary
Not available
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- ot Yet Recruiting
- Sex
- Not specified
- Target Recruitment
- 0
Inclusion Criteria
1 ASA grade I & II.
2 Height 152-180cm.
3 Weight between 40-80 kgs.
4 Mallampati grade I & II.
5 Inter incisor gap >3 fingers
6 Duration of surgery < 2 hrs
Exclusion Criteria
1 Patient refusal
2 Patients with anticipated difficult airway
3 Patient with active or any respiratory tract infection in past
10 days.
4 Patient at risk of gastric aspiration
5 Pregnant patients.
6 ASA grade III & IV
7 Individual < 18 years & >60 years .
8 Morbid obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m2)
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method 1.To compare optimal position of I Gel between the two techniques <br/ ><br>2.To compare oropharyngeal leak pressure, ease of insertion ,number of attempts and time of insertion between the two groups. <br/ ><br>3.To compare the hemodynamic changes in both the groups. <br/ ><br>Timepoint: To compare the hemodynamic changes in both the groups. <br/ ><br> <br/ ><br>Baseline before induction, Immediately after positioning, 1min, 2min, 3 min, 4 min, 5min 7min 10 min
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method To compare the complications if any. <br/ ><br> <br/ ><br>Sore Throat, Trauma, Mucosal InjuryTimepoint: Post operatively.