A new second-generation supraglottic airway device (Ambu® AuraGain•) versus intubating laryngeal mask airway as conduits for blind intubation – A prospective, randomised trial K Sudheesh, GM Chethana, H Chaithali, SS Nethra, D Devikarani, G Shwetha Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 2019 63(7):558-564 Background and Aims: The Ambu&#174; AuraGain&#8226; is a new single-use supraglottic airway device with gastric channel, designed to facilitate intubation. The study aimed to assess the success rates of proper placement and intubation using Ambu&#174; AuraGain&#8226; compared with intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA). Methods: One hundred and twenty patients (18&#8211;60 years) were enrolled into this prospective, randomised, comparative study. After inducing general anaesthesia, appropriate size ILMA (group I)/Ambu&#174; AuraGain&#8226; (group A) was placed as per the manufacturer&#39;s recommendations and correct placement was confirmed. Appropriate size endotracheal tube was passed through the device. The success rate of insertion and intubation, number of attempts, Cormack&#8211;Lehane grading before insertion and haemodynamics were recorded. Data were analysed using Mantel&#8211;Haenszel Chi-square test, Student&#39;s t-test and Fisher&#39;s exact test. Results: Demographic and airway parameters were uniformly distributed in both the groups. The success rate for insertion was 100&#37; in both devices. The success rate for intubation was 96.6&#37; (58/60) in group I and 36.6&#37; in group A (P < 0.001). In group I, patients with mean thyromental distance &#62;7.62 &#177; 0.75 cm had higher successful intubation compared with patients with mean thyromental distance &#60;5.25 &#177; 0.35 cm (P &#61; 0.014). Cormack&#8211;Lehane grading did not correlate with intubation attempts or success rate in group I (P &#61; 0.45), whereas in group A the rate of successful blind intubation with Cormack&#8211;Lehane grade 1 was 50&#37; (19/38). Conclusion: Both devices have 100&#37; insertion success, though Ambu&#174; AuraGain&#8226; has lower success rate for facilitating intubation compared with ILMA.