i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Cook TM. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Oct;115(4):633-4

Letter to the editor recommending that the term 'third generation' used when describing supraglottic airway devices is abandoned due to the confusion over the design features that determine the device's advancement. The author makes further suggestion as to how devices should be classified.

Link to abstract

Gupta B, Gupta S, Hijam B, Shende P, Rewari V. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2015 Oct-Dec;8(4):188-92

Insertion of i-gel, ProSeal and LMA Classic were studied in prone position. Time to insertion, ease of insertion, bronchoscopic view an insertion score were compared. i-gel was the quickest and easiest to insert.

Link to abstract

Bala R, Hazarika A, Pandia MP, Kumar N. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Oct-Dec;31(4):568

Report of failed ProSeal insertion, with i-gel successfully inserted in its place at the first attempt.

Link to abstract

Taxak S, Gopinath A, Saini S, Bansal T, Ahlawat MS, Bala M. Saudi J Anaesth. 2015 Oct-Dec;9(4):446-50

40 patients were allocated to either the i-gel or ProSeal group. Insertion of i-gel on first attempt was successful in 17 of 20 patients, compared to 16 for ProSeal, and was faster to insert. Authors conclude ProSeal provided the better seal but insertion was easier with i-gel.

Link to abstract

Park SY, Rim JC, Kim H, Lee JH, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015 Oct;68(5):455-61

93 patients were allocated into i-gel or LMA Supreme groups, with insertion time, attempts and fibreoptic view of glottis recorded. No significant differences were recorded.

Link to abstract