March JA, Tassey TE, Resurreccion NB, Portela RC, Taylor SE. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018 May-Jun;22(3):385-389.
The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the I-Gel airway (IGA) to the King LT laryngotracheal airway (KA) in a simulated tactical scenario. The evaluation was carried out by assessing the time to successful tube placement on a manikin. Participants were also videomonitored to assess their height exposure above the protection barrier. Finally, participants were questioned on which device they preferred with results favouring i-gel.
Link to abstract.
e0bad6d4-c7d9-47bb-b635-8a824cce880f|1|5.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
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
Tags :
2014,
Komasawa N,,
J Anesth,
Manikin study,
Chest compressions,
Blind tracheal intubation,
vs air-Q,
vs aura-i,
vs Fastrack,
Free
1e20df81-60a4-4df8-8c5a-c2b80b6efda4|1|2.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Kapoor S, Jethava DD, Gupta P, Jethava D, Kumar A. Indian J Anaesth. 2014 Jul;58(4):397-402.
Two randomised groups were assigned either device and after insertion, blind tracheal intubation was attempted. Success at first attempt and overall intubation success rates were assessed. Authors concluded that the i-gel is 'a better device' for rescue ventilation.
Link to abstract.
a86f6579-d062-48ff-b621-4c039bfbf6bd|1|3.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c