i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Spatial relationship of I-gel and Ambu® AuraOnce on pediatric airway: a randomized comparison based on three dimensional magnetic resonance imaging

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

Comparison of remifentanil EC50 for facilitating i-gel and laryngeal mask airway insertion with propofol anesthesia

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

 

Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal™ and i-gel® in adults: Meta-analysis and systematic review

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

Intubation Success through I-Gel® and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway® Using Flexible Silicone Tubes: A Randomised Noninferiority Trial

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.

Abandoning use of 1st generation SAD - Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Original post by Pearson K. Reply by Cook TM. Anaesthesia Correspondence Website. 2016. Accessed 22 May.

In the original post, and in response to Cook's study on abandoning vintage laryngeal masks (Br J Anaesth. 2015 Oct;115(4):497-9), Pearson cautions against the 'universal replacement of 1st generation devices' especially considering sub-group care (paediatrics), versatility, training and cost, and instead suggests there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Pearson also comments on the significant move towards the use of i-gel in her hospital.

In response to this, Cook suggests clinicians use the best performing and safest device where available as first choice. Cook makes mention of the two published meta-analyses on i-gel in children: by Choi GJ and Maitra S.

Link to abstract