Objective To compare the Ambu Aura-i with the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation in ear deformity children.Methods Totally 120 children who were scheduled for elective auricular reconstruction surgery requiring general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation were enrolled in this prospective study. They were randomized to receive either the Ambu Aura-i (Aura-i group) or Air-Q (Air-Q group). The time for successful tracheal intubation was assessed. The attempts for successful device insertion, leak pressures, cuff pressures, fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view, time for removal of the device after endotracheal intubation, and complications were recorded. Results Device placement, endotracheal intubation, and removal after endotracheal intubation were successful in all patients. The Air-Q group required longer time than the Aura-i group in device placement[(14.1±7.2) s vs. (10.8±5.2) s, P<0.05], successful endotracheal intubation [(39.8±9.5) s vs. (24.1±8.2) s, P<0.05], and device removal [(18.2±5.1) s vs. (14.7±3.7) s, P<0.05]. There were no differences in fiberoptic grade of view between these devices, and the percentage of glottis seen was 80.0% (Air-Q group) vs. 86.7% (Aura-i group). The leak pressure was (20.5±4.8) cmH2O in the Air-Q group and (22.2±5.0) cmH2O in the Aura-i group (P<0.05), and the cuff pressure was (22.9±11.5)cmH2O in the Air-Q group and (33.9±15.9) cmH2O in the Aura-i group (P<0.05). Hemodynamic changes were not significantly different between two group. The incidence rate of sore throat two hours after operation was 6.5% (n=4) in the Air-Q group and 5% (n=3) in the Aura-i group. Conclusion Both Ambu Aura-i and Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway are effective conduits for beroptic-guided tracheal intubation, with advantages including simple operation, high success rate, and fewer complications, especially the Ambu Aura-i.