i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Reply to letter: Comparison of the i-gel® supraglottic airway as a conduit for tracheal intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask airway

Michalek, P, Donaldson, W. Resuscitation 2010; 81(7): 911

This article is a response to Xue et al (2010). The authors generally agree that there are limitations to this study. However, the tracheal tubes used were noticeably longer than the body of the i-gel®. Although the results of manikin studies cannot be extrapolated to clinical practice, they are an important part of the testing needed before a product is used on patients.

Link to abstract.

Comparison of the i-gel® supraglottic airway as a conduit for tracheal intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask airway

Xue, FS, Wang, Q, Yuan, YJ, Xiong, J, Liao, X. Resuscitation 2010; 81(7): 910

This letter points out some issues with the manikin intubation study carried out by Michalek et al (2010). The study claimed to compare fibreoptic and blind intubations in the i-gel® and ILMA®, however only the blind intubation was fully assessed. It may have been more useful to compare a wider range of intubation aids. The authors warn that endotracheal tubes are often a similar length to the intubating airway, and that removal should be studied. It is stated that the results of the study only apply to manikins, not clinical practice.

Link to abstract.