i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Reza Hashemian SM, Nouraei N, Razavi SS, Zaker E, Jafari A, Eftekhari P, Radmand G, Mohajerani SA, Radpay B. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014 Oct-Dec;4(4):288-92

64 patients assigned to either i-gel or cLMA groups in this randomised controlled trial. Results showed i-gel was 'significantly' quicker to insert.

Link to abstract

Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi SI. J Anesth 2014; 28(5): 676-80

A group of 20 novice physicians inserted the named devices into manikins with or without chest compressions, whereupon insertion time and successful ventilation rate were measured. In cases of successful ventilation, blind tracheal intubation via the inserted device was performed. Chest compression did not significantly decrease ventilation success rates in each device, however insertion time with i-gel® did suffer, according to the authors.

Link to abstract

Weil G, Matysiak J, Guye ML, Eghiaian A, Bourgain JL. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2014 Sep-Oct;33(9-10):508-13

Using LMA Unique as a reference, cost efficacy comparisons were made against i-gel, Ambu AuraOnce and LMA Supreme. Conclusions suggested that latest generation devices are still expensive despite low rate of complications.

Link to abstract

Joly N, Poulin LP, Tanoubi I, Drolet P, Donati F, St-Pierre P. Can J Anaesth. 2014 Sep;61(9):794-800

100 patients were randomised between the two device groups, with 92% inserted successfully in both. i-gel recorded a shorter insertion time and higher incidence of complete vocal chord visualisation.

Link to abstract

Sastre JA, Cordovilla R, Jiménez MF, López T. Can J Anaesth. 2014 Sep;61(9):886-8

Letter indicating that use of the i-gel provides an optimum conduit for performing this technique and allows for control of bleeding complications when used with the Arndt blocker.

Link to abstract