i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Adelborg K, Al-Mashhadi RH, Nielsen LH, Dalgas C, Mortensen MB and Løfgren B. Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr; 69(4): 343-7

Forty lifeguards took part in this manikin study, where time to ventilation and proportion of successful ventilations (both with and without ‘concurrent’ chest compressions) were measured. Mean time to ventilate with i-gel® was 15.6 seconds, compared to 35.2 for Soft Seal and 35.1 for AuraOnce. Authors concluded that ‘most lifeguards preferred the i-gel®’.

Link to abstract

Kim MS, Oh JT, Min JY, Lee KH, Lee JR. Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr;69(4):362-7

54 infants were allocated with success rate at first attempt and fibreoptic views measured. First-attempt success was 100% for i-gel, compared to 69 in LMA.

Link to abstract

Kaur K, Bhardwaj M, Kumar P, Lal J, Johar S, Hooda S. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2014 Mar;52(1):41-2

Image quality and trauma evidence were measured in 10 adult patients undergoing MRI. Authors conclude I-gel causes the least ferromagnetic interference compared with other devices and improves the image quality.

Link to abstract

Lee JH, Cho HS, Shin WJ, Yang HS. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Feb;66(2):127-30.

Airway sealing ability, success rate of insertion and adverse events were among the recorded outcomes in this study. Leak pressures and insertion success rates are similar between the two devices, however the i-gel slid out of the mouth of a small amount of patients in this scenario. Authors recommend the device should be secured more tightly.

Link to abstract.

Kim YB, Chang YJ, Jung WS, Byen SH, Jo YY. J Anesth. 2013 Dec;27(6):827-31

After placement of an i-gel device in 40 patients, 20 were ventilated without PEEP while the other half received 5cmH20. Incidences of significent leaks and leak volumes were similar in both groups.

Link to abstract