AUTHOR=Engbers Sarah , Larkin Amy , Rousset Nicolas , Prebble Melanie , Jonnalagadda Mahesh , Knight Cameron G. , Pang Daniel S. J. 

TITLE=Comparison of a Supraglottic Airway Device (v-gel®) with Blind Orotracheal Intubation in Rabbits

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Veterinary Science

VOLUME=4

YEAR=2017

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2017.00049

DOI=10.3389/fvets.2017.00049

ISSN=2297-1769

ABSTRACT=<sec id="ST1"><title>Introduction</title><p>Achieving a secure airway in rabbits is generally considered more difficult than in cats or dogs. Their relatively large tongue, small oropharyngeal cavity and glottis limit direct visualization. A rabbit-specific supraglottic airway device (SGAD) may offer benefits over blind orotracheal intubation.</p></sec><sec id="ST2"><title>Animals and methods</title><p>Fifteen adult New Zealand white rabbits were randomized to SGAD or orotracheal intubation (ETT). All animals were sedated with dexmedetomidine (0.1 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> IM) and midazolam (0.5 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> IM), followed by induction with alfaxalone (0.3 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> IV). Two CT scans of the head and neck were performed, following sedation and SGAD/ETT placement. The following were recorded: time to successful device insertion, smallest cross-sectional airway area, airway sealing pressure, and histological score of tracheal tissue. Data were analyzed with a Mann–Whitney test.</p></sec><sec id="ST3"><title>Results</title><p>Two rabbits were excluded following failed ETT. Body masses were similar [ETT; <italic>n</italic> = 6, 2.6 (2.3–4.5) kg, SGAD; <italic>n</italic> = 7, 2.7 (2.4–5.0) kg]. SGAD placement was significantly faster [33 (14–38) s] than ETT [59 (29–171) s]. Cross-sectional area (CSA) was significantly reduced from baseline [12.2 (6.9–3.4) mm<sup>2</sup>] but similar between groups [SGAD; 2.7 (2.0–12.3) mm<sup>2</sup>, ETT; 3.8 (2.3–6.6) mm<sup>2</sup>]. In the SGAD group, the device tip migrated into the laryngeal vestibule in 6/7 rabbits, reducing the CSA. ETT airway seals were higher [15 (10–20) cmH<sub>2</sub>O], but not significant [SGAD; 5 (5–20) cmH<sub>2</sub>O, <italic>p</italic> = 0.06]. ETT resulted in significantly more mucosal damage [histological score 3.3 (1.0–5.0)], SGAD; 0.67 (0.33–3.67).</p></sec><sec id="ST4"><title>Conclusion</title><p>The SGAD studied was faster to place and caused less damage than orotracheal intubation, but resulted in a similar CSA.</p></sec>