i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Easy airway management using the i-gel™ supraglottic airway in a patient with Treacher Collins syndrome

Soh J, Shin HW, Choi SU, Lim CH, Lee HW. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Dec;67(Suppl):S17-8

Case report of failed fibreoptic intubation and videolaryngoscope on a 25-year-old male with TCS who had undergone emergency abdominal surgery. i-gel was used instead and was inserted on first attempt and the airway successully maintained.

Link to abstract

 

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel® vs laryngeal mask airway in children

Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC, Cha YJ. Anaesthesia. 2014 Nov;69(11):1258-65

A review of 9 randomised controlled trials suggested that clinical performance of i-gel was similar to LMA, save for leak pressure and fibreoptic view, both of which favoured i-gel.

Link to abstract

 

A comparison of i-gel™ and LMA Supreme™ in anesthetized and paralyzed children

Kim H, Lee JY, Lee SY, Park SY, Lee SC, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Nov;67(5):317-22

100 patients were randomly assigned to either device group, with insertion success rate, leak pressure and postoperative complications among results measured. i-gel demonstrated higher leak pressure, but a longer insertion time.

Link to abstract

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel(®) vs laryngeal mask airway in adults

de Montblanc J, Ruscio L, Mazoit JX, Benhamou D. Anaesthesia. 2014 Oct;69(10):1151-62

31 adult randomised controlled trials on i-gel against the LMA were assessed, finding that the main clinical advantage of i-gel was less frequent sore throat.

Link to abstract

Evaluation of chest compression effect on airway management with air-Q®, aura-i®, i-gel®, and Fastrack® intubating supraglottic devices by novice physicians: a randomized crossover simulation study

Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi SI. J Anesth 2014; 28(5): 676-80

A group of 20 novice physicians inserted the named devices into manikins with or without chest compressions, whereupon insertion time and successful ventilation rate were measured. In cases of successful ventilation, blind tracheal intubation via the inserted device was performed. Chest compression did not significantly decrease ventilation success rates in each device, however insertion time with i-gel® did suffer, according to the authors.

Link to abstract