COMPARISON OF TWO INSERTION TECHNIQUES i.e. CONVENTIONAL AND REVERSE, FOR i-gel AS A CONDUIT FOR INTUBATION

COMPARISON OF i-gel GUIDED INTUBATION BY TWO INSERTION TECHNIQUE: CONVENTIONAL VS REVERSE

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 2

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2021/01/030528

Enrollment

Registered

2021-01-18

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2021-11-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: J00-J99- Diseases of the respiratory system

Interventions

Intervention1: i-gel: â?¢ Group C- we will use standard conventional i-gel insertion technique â?¢ Group R- we will use reverse i-gel insertion technique. Control Intervention1: i-gel: Group C-we wil

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1.American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status grades I and II. 2.Patients aged between 18 to 60 years of either sex. 3.Patients posted for elective surgery under general anaesthesia.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Anticipated difficult airway 2. Pregnancy 3. GERD, hiatus hernia, oesophageal varices 4. BMI >=35 kg/m2

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
TO COMPARE THE RATE OF SUCCESSFUL INTUBATIONTimepoint: TIME FROM THE POINT OF INTRODUCING ETT IN AIRWAY TUBE OF i-gel TILL THE APPEARANCE OF SQUARE WAVEFORM ON CAPNOGRAPH	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
TO COMPARE THE TIME TAKEN FOR SUCCESSFUL PLACEMENT OF i-gelTimepoint: TIME FROM PICKING UP THE i-gel UNTILL THE APPEARANCE OF SQUARE WAVE CAPNOGRAPH	—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDR SASWATI DAS

KALINGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,BHUBANESWAR

das.saswati12@gmail.com9910760328

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026