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

INTRODUCTION: 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. ANIMALS AND METHODS: Fifteen adult New Zealand white rabbits were randomized to SGAD or orotracheal intubation (ETT). All animals were sedated with dexmedetomidine (0.1 mg kg(−1) IM) and midazolam (0.5 mg kg(−1) IM), followed by induction with alfaxalone (0.3 mg kg(−1) 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. RESULTS: Two rabbits were excluded following failed ETT. Body masses were similar [ETT; n = 6, 2.6 (2.3–4.5) kg, SGAD; n = 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(2)] but similar between groups [SGAD; 2.7 (2.0–12.3) mm(2), ETT; 3.8 (2.3–6.6) mm(2)]. 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(2)O], but not significant [SGAD; 5 (5–20) cmH(2)O, p = 0.06]. ETT resulted in significantly more mucosal damage [histological score 3.3 (1.0–5.0)], SGAD; 0.67 (0.33–3.67). CONCLUSION: The SGAD studied was faster to place and caused less damage than orotracheal intubation, but resulted in a similar CSA.