Abstract
In emergency situations, rescuers must occasionally secure the airway while the patient is in a restricted position, rather than in the ideal supine position. We compared the utility of Air-Q® (Air-Q) and i-gel® (i-gel) for emergency airway management in such positions. Nineteen anesthesiology trainees performed Air-Q and i-gel insertions using a simulated manikin in the supine (Supine), left lateral decubitus (Left-LT), right lateral decubitus (Right-LT), prone (Prone), and sitting (Sitting) positions to assess the performance of these devices. The success rate for ventilation did not differ significantly among the five positions in the Air-Q trial. In contrast, the success rate was significantly lower in the Prone and Sitting positions than in the Supine position in the i-gel trial. The insertion time in the successful trials did not significantly differ among all five positions in both Air-Q and i-gel trials. Based on these results, we conclude that the Air-Q may be more useful than other methods for airway management in various positions.
