C. Janakiraman
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
C. Janakiraman has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
A. R. Wilkes
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Anaesthetics and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK
1 shared publicationD. B. Chethan
Specialist Registrar
1 shared publicationM. R. Stacey
Consultant Anaesthetist, Department of Anaesthetics and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK
1 shared publicationN. Goodwin
Consultant Anaesthetist, Department of Anaesthetics and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK
1 shared publicationS. S. Rassam
University Hospital of Wales Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 1 May 2009
- Published by Wiley in Anaesthesia
- Vol. 64 (6) , 674-678
A randomised crossover trial comparing the i‐gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway*
Summary: In a randomised cross‐over study, we compared the performance of the single use i‐gel supraglottic airway and reusable classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA TM ) in 50 healthy anaesthetised patients who were breathing spontaneously. Primary outcome was successful insertion at first attempt. Secondary outcomes included overall insertion success rate, ease of insertion, leak pressure and fibreoptic position. Success rate for insertion at the first attempt was significantly different (54% with i‐gel vs 86% with cLMA; p = 0.001). Overall success after two attempts (when the anaesthetist was allowed to change the size of the device) improved to 84% with i‐gel vs 92% with cLMA; p = 0.22. In 14 patients, the i‐gel when used first needed to be replaced with a larger size. Leak pressure was higher for the i‐gel (median [IQR] 20 [14–24] cm H 2 O than the cLMA 17 [12–22] cm H 2 O; p = 0.023). The fibreoptic view through the device was significantly better with the i‐gel than the cLMA, which was statistically significant (p = 0.03). We conclude that, with its current sizing recommendations, the i‐gel is not an acceptable alternative to cLMA. However because of the significantly improved success rate after a larger sized i‐gel was used, we recommend the manufacturer to review the sizing guidelines to improve the success rate.
- 1 May 2009
- Published by Wiley in Anaesthesia
- Vol. 64 (6) , 674-678
A randomised crossover trial comparing the i‐gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway*
Summary: In a randomised cross‐over study, we compared the performance of the single use i‐gel supraglottic airway and reusable classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA TM ) in 50 healthy anaesthetised patients who were breathing spontaneously. Primary outcome was successful insertion at first attempt. Secondary outcomes included overall insertion success rate, ease of insertion, leak pressure and fibreoptic position. Success rate for insertion at the first attempt was significantly different (54% with i‐gel vs 86% with cLMA; p = 0.001). Overall success after two attempts (when the anaesthetist was allowed to change the size of the device) improved to 84% with i‐gel vs 92% with cLMA; p = 0.22. In 14 patients, the i‐gel when used first needed to be replaced with a larger size. Leak pressure was higher for the i‐gel (median [IQR] 20 [14–24] cm H 2 O than the cLMA 17 [12–22] cm H 2 O; p = 0.023). The fibreoptic view through the device was significantly better with the i‐gel than the cLMA, which was statistically significant (p = 0.03). We conclude that, with its current sizing recommendations, the i‐gel is not an acceptable alternative to cLMA. However because of the significantly improved success rate after a larger sized i‐gel was used, we recommend the manufacturer to review the sizing guidelines to improve the success rate.
- 11 April 2008
- Published by Wiley in Anaesthesia
- Vol. 63 (5) , 561-562
How do you fix reinforced tracheal tubes?
- 11 April 2008
- Published by Wiley in Anaesthesia
- Vol. 63 (5) , 561-562
How do you fix reinforced tracheal tubes?