i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Kim H, Lee JY, Lee SY, Park SY, Lee SC, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Nov;67(5):317-22

100 patients were randomly assigned to either device group, with insertion success rate, leak pressure and postoperative complications among results measured. i-gel demonstrated higher leak pressure, but a longer insertion time.

Link to abstract

Lee JH, Cho HS, Shin WJ, Yang HS. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Feb;66(2):127-30.

Airway sealing ability, success rate of insertion and adverse events were among the recorded outcomes in this study. Leak pressures and insertion success rates are similar between the two devices, however the i-gel slid out of the mouth of a small amount of patients in this scenario. Authors recommend the device should be secured more tightly.

Link to abstract.

Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Baek SJ, Kim KH. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012; 63(6): 510-4

Adult patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy were split into two groups of 30 and randomly assigned to either PLMA or i-gel®. Insertion time and number of attempts were recorded. After successful insertion in all patients in both groups, on first attempt, airway leak pressure was also measured. No significant difference in insertion time or leak pressure. Authors conclude that i-gel® is a reasonable alternative to PLMA in this scenario. 

Abstract text

Kim YH. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 63(6): 489-490

Review assessing the use of SGAs in patients with increased risk of aspiration, focusing on five devices and the evidence to date. Provides a review of the common features of SGAs, including i-gel®, and the benefits they may bring. Author appears critical of the practice of using these devices, however later states that pulmonary aspiration may occur more through user error rather than device failure.

Abstract text