i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Gupta Richa, Gupta Ruchi, Wadhawan S, Bhadoria P. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol 2012; 28(3): 397–398

Report of i-gel® (size 2.5) used as a conduit for intubation on a nine-year-old girl scheduled for post-burn contracture with limited neck extension. Spontaneous ventilation and depth of anaesthesia were maintained, even after removal of the i-gel®. Authors conclude that fibreoptic ventilation through i-gel® is a ‘highly successful technique’.

Link to abstract.

Nakano S, Uda R, Nakajima O, Yamamoto N, Akatsuka M. Masui 2012; 61(7): 765-8

Case of the use of i-gel as preferred airway device and vehicle for tracheal intubation in a 59-year-old male with known Kommerell’s diverticulum, scheduled for repair of a tibial fracture under general anaesthesia. The i-gel® resulted in an uneventful operation with both controlled and spontaneous respiration, and the authors’ conclude that i-gel® is a useful device in such specific cases.

Abstract text

Abukawa Y, Hiroki K, Ozaki M. J Anesth. 2012; 26(3): 357- 61.

This study investigated the use of paediatric i-gel® by residents on a total of 70 children of ASA score I-II undergoing surgery, split into three groups. Group 1: size 1.5; group 2: size 2; group 3: size 2.5. Seven characteristics were evaluated, including ease of i-gel® and gastric tube insertion, leak pressure and hypoxia rate. Overall insertion success rate and first-attempt success rate were 99% and 94% respectively, with gastric tube instertions easy in all cases. Results show that the i-gel® is a safe and effective device for use by residents with limited experience of paediatric airway devices. The authors warn that special attention should be given when using size 1.5 that the airway is protected.

Link to abstract.

Lee JR, Kim MS, Kim JT, Byon HJ, Park YH, Kim HS, Kim CS. Anaesthesia 2012; 67(6): 606-611

99 children underwent genereal anaesthesia randomly via either i-gel® or cLMA. Leak pressure, ease of insertion, time taken to insert, fibreoptic examination and complications were all measured. There was no significant difference in leak pressure, however the i-gel® displayed a shorter insertion time and improved glottic view.

Link to abstract.

Larkin CB, d’Agapeyeff A, King BP, Gabbott DA. Resuscitation 2012; 83(6): E141

100 size 4 i-gel® airways were inserted in patients by a mixture of nurses, junior doctors and Resuscitation Officers, either before or after bag valve mask ventilation. 83/100 insertions were considered ‘Easy’ and 82/100 were inserted at the first attempt, with only one attempt resulting in complete failure. Presence of an audible leak and visible chest movement via synchronous and asynchronous ventilation were measured. 99% of users confirmed they would prefer to use i-gel® instead of an oropharyngeal airway. Authors confirm that, as a result of this test, i-gel® is their preferred supraglottic airway device of choice during the initial phase of CPR whilst the Resuscitation Team is summoned.

Link to abstract.