Nolan J P, Soar J, Parr M J A, Perkins G D. Resuscitation 2010; 81(1): 1-4
Focus on the key studies published in Resuscitation in 2009, including cardiac arrest prevention, basic life support and CPR quality
Michalek P, Donaldson W, Graham C, Hinds JD. Resuscitation 2010; 81(1): 74-77
In this study 25 anaesthetists carried out blind and fibreoptic intubations through the ILMA® and i-gel® devices. The study took place with three different airway training manikins. There was no difference in the success rate of fibreoptic intubations between the two airways. During blind intubation, the i-gel® was significantly less successful. The i-gel® is therefore recommended for fibreoptic intubation only.
Link to abstract.
De Lloyd L, Hodzovic I, Voisey S, Wilkes AR, Latto IP. Anaesthesia 2010; 65(1): 36-43
This randomised crossover study compared the cLMA® to the i-gel® during endotracheal intubation of a manikin. 32 anaesthetists took part in the study. For each device, two intubations took place with the tracheal tube directly over the fibrescope and two used an Aintree Intubation Catheter. Intubation took significantly less time with the i-gel® using both methods. Five oesophageal intubations occurred with the cLMA. Anaesthetists stated a preference for the i-gel® due to the ease of use. The authors conclude that the i-gel® is a more appropriate choice for intubation than the cLMA.
Link to abstract.
Mitchell CA, Riddle ML, Pearson NM, Tauferner DH, Carl R. Annals Of Emergency Medicine 2010;5(3):S25
Study to determine if a bougie could be successfully placed in a cadaver by emergency medicine providers using four supraglottic airway devices: LMA Supreme®, i-gel®, LMA® and KingLT®. Time to placement, confidence in the procedure and correct placement via direct laryngoscopy post-removal were recorded. No great significant differences in most areas, however i-gel® was much quicker than KingLT® to successfully insert, and generally outperformed it. LMA Supreme® and i-gel® considered the better devices for such a procedure, although the authors concede that using a cadaver did inhibit the study.
Chapman D. Anaesthesia 2010; 65(1): 89
This letter is a response to the 2009 study by Janakiraman (see page 7) et al. which compared the i-gel® to the LMA Classic®. In that study, the authors stated that the devices were lubricated along the tip and the posterior surface. However, the correct lubrication procedure for the i-gel® is different; the thermoplastic material used to make the device is tacky until lubricated and requires lubrication on all four sides of the cuff.