i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

The use of i-gel® extraglottic airway during percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy: a case series

Corso RM, Piraccini E, Agnoletti V, Baccanelli M, Coffa A, Gambale G. Minerva Anaestesiol 2011; 77(8): 852-3

The i-gel® was used in eight patients for tracheostomy. Patients were extubated and the ET tube was replaced with the i-gel®. A percutaneous tracheostomy kit was then advanced to the second tracheal ring and the procedure was performed. Arterial pressure, PaO2/FiO2, minute ventilation and airway pressure were measured before, during and after tracheostomy. There were no significant differences in ventilatory and haemodynamic parameters. Use of the i-gel® was successful in seven of eight patients. The i-gel® provided better views of the glottis compared to the cLMA and ventilation was comparable to the ET tube. Large trials must take place to determine whether a one in eight failure rate remains.

Abstract text

Use of an i-gel® in a ‘can’t intubate/can’t ventilate’ situation

Corso RM, Piraccini E, Agnoletti V, Gambale G. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010; 38(1): 211

This report details the use of an i-gel® to provide an airway for a 63-year-old male with severe subglottic swelling. Two prior attempts at insertion of a gum elastic bougie failed and facemask ventilation was ineffective. A well-known brand of laryngeal mask was inserted, but ventilation was impossible, so it was removed and replaced with an i-gel®. Subsequent intubation through the i-gel® was performed successfully with a flexible fibrescope.

Abstract text

Comparison of i-gel® supraglottic with laryngeal mask airway

Ali A, Sheikh NA, Ali L, Siddique SA. Professional Med J 2010; 17(4): 643-647

100 patients received ventilation via the i-gel® or cLMA during elective surgery. The devices were compared for ease of insertion, insertion time, number of airway manipulations needed and post-operative complications. The devices were generally comparable. More airway manipulations were required with the i-gel®, however this was not a statistically significant increase compared to the cLMA. The incidence of complications was very low, with one case of blood on an i-gel® and one incident of laryngospasm with each device.

Abstract text