i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Beleña JM, Núñez M, Vidal A, Gasco C, Alcojor A, Lee P, Pérez JL. Anaesthesist. 2015 Apr;64(4):271-6

140 patients split into device groups, with speed of insertion, success rates, leak pressure and tidal volume evaluated. i-gel proved quicker to insert and generally the results were comparable.

Link to abstract.

Jadhav PA, Dalvi NP, Tendolkar BA. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Apr-Jun;31(2):221-5

Ease and time to insertion, airway sealing pressure and adverse events were measured in this study of 60 patients randomly allocated to i-gel and ProSeal groups. i-gel proved easier to insert and less traumatic.

Link to abstract

Beleña JM, Núñez M, Vidal A, Gasco C, Alcojor A, Lee P, Pérez JL. Anaesthesist. 2015 Apr;64(4):271-6

140 patients split into two groups: i-gel and LMA Supreme, with insertion time, success rate and leak pressure among the results measured. i-gel was quicker to insert but deemed not as easy. No differences were found in leak pressure.

Link to abstract

Dhanger S, Adinarayanan S, Vinayagam S, Kumar MP. Saudi J Anaesth. 2015 Apr-Jun;9(2):217-9

Report of the successful use of i-gel guided fibreoptic intubation.

Link to abstract

Ekinci O, Abitagaoglu S, Turan G, Sivrikaya Z, Bosna G, Ozgultekin A. Saudi Med J. 2015 Apr;36(4):432-6

Randomised group of 80 patients split into i-gel and ProSeal groups, with insertion time, gastric tube insertion and complications among the results measured. Insertion was easier and quicker with i-gel.

Link to abstract