i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Ashay NA, Wasim S, Anil TB. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Jul-Sep;31(3):324-8

This randomised controlled trial compared propofol requirements for i-gel and LMA Classic when inserted 60 seconds after injection. i-gel required a significantly lower dose.

Link to abstract

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.

Abstract text

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.

Taxak S, Bhardwaj M, Gopinath A. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol 2012; 28(2): 263–264

Two successful cases of paediatric i-gel® used to manage the airway during brain MRI under general anaesthesia. The first, a three-month-old, was maintained using size one; whilst a size two was used on the second case, a boy aged three-and-a-half with a Mallampati score of two. Usual capnography readings taken to ensure secure placement, and in both cases there was no evidence of desaturation. Compared to other laryngeal mask airways, the authors conclude that i-gel® suffers no risk of displacement, meaning intubation does not have to be repeated on known sensitive patients. They also deduce that i-gel® has other advantages, including ease of insertion and minimum adverse effects on removal of the device. Large studies are required, however, to ‘confirm its usefulness’.

Link to abstract.

Gosalia N, Khan RM, Kaul N, Sumant A. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol 2009; 25(3): 345-347

In this study, the i-gel®’s placement and performance were studied for insertions carried out with and without the use of a gum elastic bougie. 50 patients were randomised into two groups. In the first group, the i-gel® was inserted using the standard method. In the second group, a bougie was used to insert the device via the gastric channel. The time taken for insertion and the number of attempts needed were similar for both methods. Leakage and patient discomfort were less common when the bougie was used. The authors conclude that using a bougie improves i-gel® placement without increasing insertion time or adverse effects.

Link to abstract.