i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Initial experience of the i-gel® supraglottic airway by the residents in pediatric patients

Abukawa Y, Hiroki K, Ozaki M. J Anesth. 2012; 26(3): 357- 61.

This study investigated the use of paediatric i-gel® by residents on a total of 70 children of ASA score I-II undergoing surgery, split into three groups. Group 1: size 1.5; group 2: size 2; group 3: size 2.5. Seven characteristics were evaluated, including ease of i-gel® and gastric tube insertion, leak pressure and hypoxia rate. Overall insertion success rate and first-attempt success rate were 99% and 94% respectively, with gastric tube instertions easy in all cases. Results show that the i-gel® is a safe and effective device for use by residents with limited experience of paediatric airway devices. The authors warn that special attention should be given when using size 1.5 that the airway is protected.

Link to abstract.

iGel supraglottic airway use during hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Larkin CB, d’Agapeyeff A, King BP, Gabbott DA. Resuscitation 2012; 83(6): E141

100 size 4 i-gel® airways were inserted in patients by a mixture of nurses, junior doctors and Resuscitation Officers, either before or after bag valve mask ventilation. 83/100 insertions were considered ‘Easy’ and 82/100 were inserted at the first attempt, with only one attempt resulting in complete failure. Presence of an audible leak and visible chest movement via synchronous and asynchronous ventilation were measured. 99% of users confirmed they would prefer to use i-gel® instead of an oropharyngeal airway. Authors confirm that, as a result of this test, i-gel® is their preferred supraglottic airway device of choice during the initial phase of CPR whilst the Resuscitation Team is summoned.

Link to abstract.

A randomised trial comparing the i-gel® with the LMA Classic® in children

Lee JR, Kim MS, Kim JT, Byon HJ, Park YH, Kim HS, Kim CS. Anaesthesia 2012; 67(6): 606-611

99 children underwent genereal anaesthesia randomly via either i-gel® or cLMA. Leak pressure, ease of insertion, time taken to insert, fibreoptic examination and complications were all measured. There was no significant difference in leak pressure, however the i-gel® displayed a shorter insertion time and improved glottic view.

Link to abstract.