i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Sore throat following three adult supraglottic airway devices

L'Hermite J, Dubout E, Bouvet S, Bracoud LH, Cuvillon P, Coussaye JE, Ripart J. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017 Jul;34(7):417-424

Comparison of the incidence of sore throat in 546 patients following use of LMA Unique, LMA Supreme and the i-gel. Primary outcome was incidence 24 hours postoperatively. Authors concluded that recordings were not significantly different between the three devices.

Link to abstract

Ambu AuraOnce versus i-gel laryngeal mask airway in infants and children undergoing surgical procedures. A randomized controlled trial

Alzahem AM, Aqil M, Alzahrani TA, Aljazaeri AH. Saudi Med J. 2017 May;38(5):482-490

Randomised assignment of 112 patients to either AuraOnce or i-gel groups in which oropharyngeal leak pressure, ease of insertion and fibreoptic viewing were measured. i-gel recorded more favourable leak pressures and superior fibreoptic viewing.

Link to abstract.

Calling the patient's own name facilitates recovery from general anaesthesia: a randomised double-blind trial

Jung YS, Paik H, Min SH, Choo H, Seo M, Bahk JH, Seo JH. Anaesthesia. 2017 Feb;72(2):197-203.

Random allocation of patients into two groups: one with a name-specific verbal command and one using a general term. Time to i-gel removal was quicker in the name group.

Link to abstract.

I-gel airway for advanced uses: a case of successful utilization of this second-generation supraglottic airway device for controlled ventilation during general anaesthesia in lateral decubitus position

Shiraishi Zapata CJ. Minerva Anestesiol. 2017 Feb;83(2):219-220

Letter to editor reporting the case of successful controlled ventilation in lateral decubitus position on a 39-year-old male. i-gel size 4 chosen after failed tracheal intubation. No evidence of trauma or pharyngeal inflammation.

Link to abstract

Presumed air entrainment through the gastric port of a paediatric i-gel® device - manufacturer's reply

Chapman D. Anaesthesia. 2017 Feb;72(2):263-264.

Response to the letter from Seeley et al. Manufacturer posits that the reason for light anaesthesia and hence air entrainment, may have been caused by the tip of the device not being located in the upper oesophageal opening and the non-inflatable cuff located against the laryngeal framework, meaning the airway and gastric channels would not be isolated from each other. In the event described by the case report, reference to the user guide would suggest reinsertion of the device using a gentle jaw thrust, deep rotation or triple maneouvre to achieve optimum depth of insertion.

Link to abstract.