i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Comparison of the i-gel® and the LMA Unique® laryngeal mask airway in patients with mild to moderate obesity during elective short-term surgery

Weber U, Oguz R, Potura LA, Kimberger O, Kober A, Tschernko E. Anaesthesia 2011; 66(6): 481-487

In this crossover study, 50 adult patients with BMI 25-35kg/m2 were assigned to ventilation with the i-gel® and the LMA Unique® in random order. Insertion attempts, difficulty (on a scale of 1-4), time to insertion and leak pressure were measured with each device. Leak pressure was higher with the i-gel®, with a mean value of 23.7cm H2O compared to 17.4cm H2O with the LMA Unique®. Within the study population, there was a bigger difference in leak pressures amongst patients with BMI >30. Insertion was generally comparable, although the i-gel® had a significantly shorter insertion time.

Abstract text


i-gel® vs AuraOnceTM laryngeal mask for general anaesthesia with controlled ventilation in paralyzed patients

Donaldson W, Abraham A, Deighan M, Michalek P. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2011; 155(2): 155–164

Devices were generally comparable with high overall and first-attempt success rates. The i-gel® had a significantly higher seal pressure (30.4 compared to 27.8cm H2O) and a lower incidence of postoperative complications.

Abstract text


Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient--can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?

Nakstad AR, Sandberg M.Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011 13; 19: 36

Twenty anaesthesiologists from the Air Ambulance Department at Oslo University Hospital used i-gel®, laryngeal tube LTSII™ and Macintosh laryngoscopes in two scenarios with either unrestricted (scenario A) or restricted (scenario B) access to the cranial end of the manikin. Technique selected, success rates and time to completion were primary outcomes. Results showed that in scenario B, all physicians secured the airway on first attempt, compared to 80% for ETI, whilst also completing in a quicker time. Authors conclude that ‘ETI was time consuming and had a low success rate’.

Abstract text