Background and Aim: Due to availability of I-gel in different sizes, I-gel has gained increasing popularity as an alternative airway device in paediatric patients which is available in three adult and four paediatric sizes in the range. The depth of the anaesthesia for I-gel insertion is less than that required for endotracheal intubation. Present study is an effort to compare the two devices that is I-gel and Endotracheal Tube in Paediatric Patients. Material and Methods: The present study was carried out as prospective observational study at the tertiary health centre. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. Pediatric Patients posted for surgery fulfilling Inclusion criteria were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group ETT: Endotracheal intubation (n=25) and Group I-GEL: I-gel insertion (n=25). Various parameters recorded were duration of surgery, duration of anaesthesia, insertion time and number of attempts for insertion of I-gel/ Endotracheal tube, ease of insertion and complications and need for rescue anaesthesia. Results: In comparison with I-GEL group in patients of endotracheal intubation mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in postoperative period. There is no significant difference in the MAP after 60 min between two groups (p>0.05) Conclusion: I-GEL insertion is easy, requires less time and less attempts to insert as compared to endotracheal intubation. I-GEL insertion is associated with less Haemodynamic changes as compared to Endotracheal intubation. After removal of I-GEL, patient becomes haemodynamically stable earlier than Endotracheal intubation. I-GEL does not cause tracheal stimulation.

Background and Aim: Due to availability of I-gel in different sizes, I-gel has gained increasing popularity as an alternative airway device in paediatric patients which is available in three adult and four paediatric sizes in the range. The depth of the anaesthesia for I-gel insertion is less than that required for endotracheal intubation. Present study is an effort to compare the two devices that is I-gel and Endotracheal Tube in Paediatric Patients. Material and Methods: The present study was carried out as prospective observational study at the tertiary health centre. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. Pediatric Patients posted for surgery fulfilling Inclusion criteria were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group ETT: Endotracheal intubation (n=25) and Group I-GEL: I-gel insertion (n=25). Various parameters recorded were duration of surgery, duration of anaesthesia, insertion time and number of attempts for insertion of I-gel/ Endotracheal tube, ease of insertion and complications and need for rescue anaesthesia. Results: In comparison with I-GEL group in patients of endotracheal intubation mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in postoperative period. There is no significant difference in the MAP after 60 min between two groups (p>0.05) Conclusion: I-GEL insertion is easy, requires less time and less attempts to insert as compared to endotracheal intubation. I-GEL insertion is associated with less Haemodynamic changes as compared to Endotracheal intubation. After removal of I-GEL, patient becomes haemodynamically stable earlier than Endotracheal intubation. I-GEL does not cause tracheal stimulation.