i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Helmy AM, Atef HM, El-Taher EM, Henidak AM. Saudi J Anaesth 2010; 4(3): 131-136

This study compared the cLMA and i-gel® in 80 healthy adult patients. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups for insertion of one of the devices during surgery. Haemodynamic data, oxygen saturation and end-tidal CO2 were similar in both groups. Leak pressure was significantly higher with the i-gel®, which also had a shorter insertion time. Postoperative complications were generally comparable, however there was a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting in the cLMA group due to gastric insufflation.

Abstract text

Piraccini E, Bartolini A, Agnoletti V, Corso R, Gambale G, Vicini C. Am J Emerg Med 2010; 28(7): 840-41

This case report describes the successful use of an i-gel® for a 24-year-old ENT patient in a Columbian hospital. An initial attempt at direct laryngoscopy failed because of a lack of the necessary tools; a size two Miller blade was the only adult blade available. A size three i-gel® was subsequently inserted and immediately established airway patency to facilitate intubation.

Abstract text

Gasteiger L, Brimacombe J, Perkhofer D, Kaufmann M, Keller C. Anaesthesia 2010; 65(9): 913-916

This study compared the use of the LMA Proseal® and the i-gel® in 152 adult female patients. A duodenal tube guided insertion technique was used for both devices. There was no significant difference between insertion success rates and insertion times of the two devices. Leak pressure was 7cm H2O higher with the ProSeal®, providing a better seal for ventilation.

Link to abstract