i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Editorial Comment: Mucosal Erosion of the Cricoid Cartilage After the Use of an i-Gel Supraglottic AirwayDevice in a Patient with Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis AND Soft Palate Ulceration After Brief Use of an i-Gel Supraglottic Airway

Hagberg CA. A A Case Rep. 2014 Aug 15;3(4):51-2

Comment on two case reports by Schaer et al and de Graaff et al in which the importance of evaluating risk factors for difficult supraglottic airway use were highlighted. Author focuses on the importance of understanding recommended insertion techniques as part of greater knowledge of SADs.

Link to abstract

Should supraglottic airway devices be used by lifeguards at all?

Baker P, Webber J. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928-9

A further response to Adelborg et al (Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr;69(4):343-7), expressing concern at this being a manikin study, and suggesting that the “vital issue” is whether a device is “fit for purpose” in the case of a drowning patient.

Link to abstract

A reply

Lofgren B, Adelborg K. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 929-30

A response to the two concerns raised by McKenna (Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928) and Baker (Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928-9), acknowledging that more studies are needed and that there is currently “insufficient evidence” to recommend any specific ventilation technique among lifeguards. They also reiterate their study conclusions.

Link to abstract

Comparison of supraglottic devices i-gel(®) and LMA Fastrach(®) as conduit for endotracheal intubation

Kapoor S, Jethava DD, Gupta P, Jethava D, Kumar A. Indian J Anaesth. 2014 Jul;58(4):397-402.

Two randomised groups were assigned either device and after insertion, blind tracheal intubation was attempted. Success at first attempt and overall intubation success rates were assessed. Authors concluded that the i-gel is 'a better device' for rescue ventilation.

Link to abstract.