Sen I, Bhardwaj N, Latha YS. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol 2013; 29: 128-9
Case reported of tongue folding during procedure on a 30-year-old woman. Usual insertion technique did not provide a patent airway, so the authors confirm they used a reverse technique - proving successful. Authors conclude the technique was atraumatic and may be a suitable back-up.
Quinn AC, Milne D, Columb M, Gorton H and Knight M. Br J Anaesth. 2013 Jan;110(1):74-80
The purpose of this UK-wide study was to further evaluate the predetermined rate that one in 250 obstetric patients suffer failed intubation whilst undergoing general anaesthesia. Due to the lack of national figures, the study used the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) of data collection in centres across the UK to record incidence, risk factors and any reports of failed intubations. All contacted centres responded, equalling 57 completed reports, giving a unit-based estimation of one case in every 224 patients. Univariate analyses also recorded in detail in this report.
Link to abstract.
Huitink JM, Koopman EM, Bouwman RA, Craenen A, Verwoert M, Krage R, Visser IE, Erwteman M, van Groeningen D, Tijink R and Schauer A. Anaesthesia. 2013 Jan;68(1):74-8
Study on tracheal intubation in manikins and patients with a camera embedded in the tip of the tracheal tube Vivasight™ pre-loaded in a size 5 i-gel®. All attempted intubations were successful, with a mean time of 1.4 seconds, and was faster when compared to intubation via LMA®.
Link to abstract.
Theiler L, Gutzmann M, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Urwyler N, Kaempfen B, Greif R. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109(6): 990-995
Over a period of 24 months, 2049 uses of the i-gel® were measured across five independent hospitals in Switzerland to evaluate insertion success rates, leak pressures, adverse events, and risk factors for failure. Patients’ mean age was 47 years. The authors concluded that the i-gel® is a reliable device, failing in less than 5% of patients and providing high leak pressures. Serious adverse events are rare.
Kim YH. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 63(6): 489-490
Review assessing the use of SGAs in patients with increased risk of aspiration, focusing on five devices and the evidence to date. Provides a review of the common features of SGAs, including i-gel®, and the benefits they may bring. Author appears critical of the practice of using these devices, however later states that pulmonary aspiration may occur more through user error rather than device failure.