i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Arevalo-Ludeña J, Arcas-Bellas JJ, Alvarez-Rementería R, Flandes J, Morís L, Muñoz Alameda LE. J Clin Anesth. 2016 Jun;31:137-41

Prospective observational study on 22 patients comparing the use of i-gel against orotracheal intubation. Tidal volume, peak pressure, gas leaks and adverse events were recorded. Authors conclude i-gel is 'an effective and safe alternative' to OTI in this scenario.

Link to abstract

Aqil M, Delvi B, Abujamea A, Alzahrani T, Alzahem A, Mansoor S, Aaljazaeri A. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016 Jun 17

Sixty paediatric patients were split between the two groups, with scans of head and neck performed after confirmation of device placement. Both devices 'significantly' reduced the area of glottis opening. i-gel produced greater dilation of upper oesophogeal sphincter. Authors conclude more studies needed to test these results to 'reduce morbidity on pediatric airway'.

Link to abstract

Choi JB, Kwak HJ, Lee KC, Lee SR, Lee SY, Kim JY. J Anesth. J Anesth. 2016 Jun;30(3):377-83

Randomised study comparing 41 female patients across two groups: i-gel and LMA, undergoing anaesthesia. EC50 of remifentanil concentration for i-gel insertion was significantly lower.

Link to abstract

Shin HW, Yoo HN, Bae GE, Chang JC, Park MK, You HS, Kim HJ, Ahn HS. J Int Med Res. 2016 Jun;44(3):405-18

Online searches of popular databases resulted in 14 randomised controlled trials being included. Overall, leak pressure was higher with ProSeal, but i-gel was faster to insert, had lower incidence of blood staining on removal and sore throat.

Link to abstract

Naik L, Bhardwaj N, Sen IM, Sondekoppam RV. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2016;2016:7318595

Study on 120 patients comparing intubation success through i-gel or ILMA. Overall success rate proved lower with i-gel in this scenario, with no differences in secondary outcomes.