i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Henlin T, Sotak M, Kovaricek P, Tyll T, Balcarek L, Michalek P. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:201898

Prospective, randomised, single-blinded study comparing five supraglottic airway devices (ProSeal LMA, Supreme LMA, SLIPA, Laryngeal Tube Suction-D and i-gel) in low light conditions on 505 patients after induction of general anaesthesia. Insertion time was shortest in Supreme LMA and i-gel groups.

Link to abstract

Kang F, Li J, Chai X, Yu J, Zhang H, Tang C. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2015 Jan;27(1):37-41

Patients were randomised between the two groups, with device inserted in supine position. Insertion time and attempts, airway peak pressure and complications were among results measured. i-gel provided a higher airway seal pressure in the prone position and both devices recorded low complication rates.

Link to abstract

Smith P, Bailey CR. Anaesthesia. 2015 Jan;70(1):84-92

Review of 62 published articles, including 14 randomised controlled trials, comparing i-gel with other supraglottic airway devices in children. Leak pressure was found to be the most common primary outcome. Authors conclude i-gel is 'at least equivalent' to other devices, and may give higher leak pressures and improved fibreoptic view of the glottis.

Link to abstract

Komasawa N, Nishihara I, Tatsumi S, Minami T. BMJ Open. 2015 Jan 13;5(1):e006653

Patients were assigned to a warm (at 42 degrees centigrade) or control room temperature group. Number of attempts until successful insertion and sealing pressure were compared. Authors conclude that pre-warming did not increase insertion success rate.

Link to abstract

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