A comparison of AIROD and conventional bougie as an intubation guide in simulated difficult airway: A prospective randomized study

Abstract Background and Aim: The present study aimed to compare the success rates of intubation using AIROD and gum elastic bougie (GEB) in simulated difficult airway. Material and Methods: This prospective randomized study was conducted on 100 patients of either sex aged 18–60 years, belonging to ASA physical status I–II, with 50 patients in each group. Group A patients were intubated using AIROD, and Group G patients were intubated using GEB. The primary objective of the study was to compare the first-attempt success rates of endotracheal intubation using the two devices. The secondary objectives were to compare the success of introducer placement, the total time required for successful intubation, the ease of intubation, the need for optimization maneuvers, and the incidence of device-related complications. Results: The placement of introducer was successful in 98% and 100% patients in groups A and G, respectively. The mean insertion time of endotracheal tube (ETT) placement was 28.33 ± 12.77 and 35.06 ± 11.45 sec for groups A and G, respectively, which was found to be statistically significant between the groups ( P = 0.001). The ETT was placed in the first attempt in 90% patients in group A and 84% in group B, respectively ( P = 0.357). In 2% patients, failure to insert the introducer was noted in group A compared to none in group G. Conclusions: Our study concludes that AIROD offers a modest but meaningful advantage over GEB, providing easier insertion, improved glottic visualization, and a significantly shorter intubation time, while maintaining a comparable safety profile.