i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

The use of the i-gel® in a developing country

Piraccini E, Bartolini A, Agnoletti V, Corso R, Gambale G, Vicini C. Am J Emerg Med 2010; 28(7): 840-41

This case report describes the successful use of an i-gel® for a 24-year-old ENT patient in a Columbian hospital. An initial attempt at direct laryngoscopy failed because of a lack of the necessary tools; a size two Miller blade was the only adult blade available. A size three i-gel® was subsequently inserted and immediately established airway patency to facilitate intubation.

Abstract text

Comparison of guided insertion of the LMA Proseal® vs. the i-gel®

Gasteiger L, Brimacombe J, Perkhofer D, Kaufmann M, Keller C. Anaesthesia 2010; 65(9): 913-916

This study compared the use of the LMA Proseal® and the i-gel® in 152 adult female patients. A duodenal tube guided insertion technique was used for both devices. There was no significant difference between insertion success rates and insertion times of the two devices. Leak pressure was 7cm H2O higher with the ProSeal®, providing a better seal for ventilation.

Link to abstract


Comparison of the Intersurgical® Solus® laryngeal mask airway and the i-gel® supralaryngeal device

Amini S, Khoshfetrat M. Anaesthesia 2010; 65(8): 805-809

120 healthy adult patients were assigned to either the Solus® or i-gel® device for general anaesthesia. Airway quality measures, leak pressure, insertion time and complications were recorded. Both devices performed well and had low incidences of complications. The Solus® laryngeal mask required less airway manipulation, and provided better leak pressures and views of the vocal cords. i-gel® was quicker to insert.

Abstract text



Comparison of the i-gel® supraglottic airway as a conduit for tracheal intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask airway

Xue, FS, Wang, Q, Yuan, YJ, Xiong, J, Liao, X. Resuscitation 2010; 81(7): 910

This letter points out some issues with the manikin intubation study carried out by Michalek et al (2010). The study claimed to compare fibreoptic and blind intubations in the i-gel® and ILMA®, however only the blind intubation was fully assessed. It may have been more useful to compare a wider range of intubation aids. The authors warn that endotracheal tubes are often a similar length to the intubating airway, and that removal should be studied. It is stated that the results of the study only apply to manikins, not clinical practice.

Link to abstract.

Reply to letter: Comparison of the i-gel® supraglottic airway as a conduit for tracheal intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask airway

Michalek, P, Donaldson, W. Resuscitation 2010; 81(7): 911

This article is a response to Xue et al (2010). The authors generally agree that there are limitations to this study. However, the tracheal tubes used were noticeably longer than the body of the i-gel®. Although the results of manikin studies cannot be extrapolated to clinical practice, they are an important part of the testing needed before a product is used on patients.

Link to abstract.