i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

A comprehensive list of all known published clinical evidence on the device

Phenomenon with i-gel® airway: a reply

Chapman D. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(2): 228

This letter is a reply to Baxter (2008). Baxter described two incidents where air was ‘entrained through the suction port’ leading to decreased end-tidal sevoflurane and lightened anaesthesia. This response suggests that the devices in question may not have been inserted fully, meaning that the airway and gastric channels were not isolated from each other. To ensure full insertion takes place, users should make sure that the level of anaesthesia, patient position and insertion method are correct.

Abstract text

A comparison of correct i-gel® placement with and without the aid of a bougie

Gosalia N, Khan RM, Kaul N, Sumant A. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol 2009; 25(3): 345-347

In this study, the i-gel®’s placement and performance were studied for insertions carried out with and without the use of a gum elastic bougie. 50 patients were randomised into two groups. In the first group, the i-gel® was inserted using the standard method. In the second group, a bougie was used to insert the device via the gastric channel. The time taken for insertion and the number of attempts needed were similar for both methods. Leakage and patient discomfort were less common when the bougie was used. The authors conclude that using a bougie improves i-gel® placement without increasing insertion time or adverse effects.

Link to abstract.



Comparison of clinical performance of i-gel® with LMA Proseal® in elective surgeries

Singh I, Gupta M, Tandon M. Indian J Anaesth 2009; 53(3): 302-305

This clinical investigation into performance of i-gel® compared to another supraglottic airway with gastric access, concluded that i-gel® was easier to insert, required fewer attempts at insertion, had easier gastric tube placement and was less traumatic than the other device tested. Sixty patients were randomly assigned into two groups: Group 1 (n=30) for i-gel® and Group P (n=30). Assessment was made of sealing pressure, ease of insertion, success rate of insertion, ease of gastric tube placement, airway trauma by post operative blood staining of the device, tongue, lip and dental trauma, hoarseness, regurgitation/aspiration and cost effectiveness.

Link to abstract.


Influence of airway management strategy on 'no-flow-time' in a standardized single rescuer manikin scenario - a comparison between LTS-D and i-gel®

Wiese CHR, Bahr J, Popov AF, Hinz JM, Graf BM. Resuscitation 2009; 80(1): 100-103

This paper compared i-gel® to another supraglottic airway in a manikin cardiac arrest scenario. The study evaluated the effect use of these devices had on No-Flow Time (NFT). The authors stated that ‘an ideal supraglottic airway should be inserted rapidly with minimal training and it should enable controlled ventilation’. i-gel® met those criteria during resuscitation in a manikin and NFT was kept as low as possible, consistent with ERC guidelines.

Link to abstract.

Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device i-gel® in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways Classic and ProSealTM using a cadaver model

Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T, Bogusch G, Mager G, Kerner T. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102(1): 135-139

The three supraglottic devices were inserted into eight unfixed cadaver models with exposed oesophagi, connected to a water column producing both a slow and fast oesophageal pressure increase. During a fast increase of oesophageal pressure (simulated vomiting procedure) with the oesophageal lumen of the i-gel® and pLMA open, the authors reported that ‘the entire oesophageal liquid was drained to the outside without any tracheal aspiration occurring.’

Link to abstract.