Skip to content

Comparison of two techniques of inserting a airway device in pediatric age group

Device Profile Of i-gel: Comparison of two insertion techniques

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Phase 1
Study type
Observational
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2025/02/081026
Enrollment
96
Registered
2025-02-20
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-03-03

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

Conditions

Health Condition 1: O- Medical and Surgical

Interventions

Control Intervention1: NIL: NIL

Sponsors

K S Hegde Medical Academy
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia 1.Age of 6 Months-18 Years 2.ASA 1 and 2

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1.Refusal to enrol in the study by Parent/Guardian and patient(ASSENT WHERE INDICATED) 2.Patients with Upper Respiratory tract infections 3.Children risk of regurgitation 4.Patients with obvious Airway Pathology

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Comparison of device profile of i-gel with 2 techniques of insertion in terms of 1.Proper placement of i-gel using Fiberoptic view 2.First attempt success rate 3.Time for insertion 4.Airway seal pressure measured using the peak airway pressure at minimal leakTimepoint: After induction of general anaesthesia 1.Attempts and ease of insertion of i-gel 2.After insertion of i-gel for proper placement and oropharyngeal air leak pressure

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Comparison of complication in terms of 1.Additional maneuvers required 2.Emergence cough 3.Airway traumaTimepoint: 1.While insertion of i-gel 2.At end of procedure, After extubation of i-gel

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactSHIVANI RATHOD

K S HEGDE MEDICAL ACADEMY

sumarshetty@nitte.edu.in9448115617

Outcome results

None listed

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