Background Due to the technical difficulties with endotracheal intubation of rabbits, a prospective, randomised, controlled study was performed to compare a rabbit-specific supraglottic airway device (SGAD), the v-gel, with endoscopic endotracheal intubation (EEI) in spontaneously breathing rabbits undergoing ovariohysterectomy.
Methods Fourteen adult female New Zealand white rabbits were randomly allocated to one of two groups based on the method of airway establishment: EEI or v-gel SGAD. Anaesthesia was induced with ketamine and xylazine and maintained using isoflurane in 100 per cent oxygen. Comparisons were made between groups based on placement time of endotracheal tube/SGAD, number of attempts and adjustments, the necessity to increase isoflurane concentrations to maintain a surgical plane of anaesthesia, arterial blood gas values, gross laryngeal evaluation, and laryngotracheal histopathology.
Results Both techniques resulted in elevated arterial pCO2 levels, but the v-gel was associated with more elevated pCO2 in comparison with EEI (P=0.045). Airway trauma was histologically present but clinically negligible in both groups, with no statistically significant differences observed between techniques (P>0.05). Placement time of the v-gel was significantly faster (P=0.003) and required less technical skill than EEI, but was more easily displaced when changing the animal’s position (P=0.004).
Conclusion The v-gel is a practical alternative to EEI for securing the airway of healthy spontaneously ventilating rabbits, provided a capnograph is utilised to ensure continuous placement. Both airway techniques appear safe and effective with few complications, as long as intermittent positive pressure ventilation can be employed to correct hypercapnia.
- endoscopic endotracheal intubation
- supraglottic airway device
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This research was supported in part by Docsinnovent and Oxbow Animal Health.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval The study’s protocol was approved by the University of Georgia Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC A2013 04-020-Y1-A3), and the university is fully accredited by the AAALAC International Council.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.