Mishra SK, Sivaraman B, Balachander H, Naggapa M, Parida S, Bhat RR, Yuvaraj K. Anesth Essays Res. 2015 Sep-Dec;9(3):353-8
60 patients were enrolled to either i-gel or ProSeal groups, with the primary objective to compare sealing pressure. Authors conclude ProSeal gave a better seal.
Link to abstract
5a95bc33-8c91-4769-a46a-60aee8043d94|2|3.5|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Zhang JQ, Meng FM, Xue FS, Li RP. Saudi Med J. 2015 Sep;36(9):1130
Questions raised as to the interpretation of results given, particularly user experience and insertion method of ProSeal. Response from original study author is also declared within.
Link to abstract
c08a0f29-aa59-48f0-82e5-a7147482e42f|1|5.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Polat R, Aydin GB, Ergil J, Sayin M, Kokulu T, Ozturk I. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015 Sep-Oct;65(5):343-8
Performance of i-gel vs LMA Classic was measured in 120 patients, with respect to successful insertion attempts, insertion time, peak airway pressure, regurgitation, fibreoptic glottic view and postoperative complications. i-gel gave a shorter insertion time and better fibreoptic view.
Link to abstract
bd1797f0-6aba-4393-adec-fca363d01de0|1|3.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c