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.
Chapman D. Anaesthesia 2010; 65(1): 89
This letter is a response to the 2009 study by Janakiraman (see page 7) et al. which compared the i-gel® to the LMA Classic®. In that study, the authors stated that the devices were lubricated along the tip and the posterior surface. However, the correct lubrication procedure for the i-gel® is different; the thermoplastic material used to make the device is tacky until lubricated and requires lubrication on all four sides of the cuff.
De Lloyd L, Hodzovic I, Voisey S, Wilkes AR, Latto IP. Anaesthesia 2010; 65(1): 36-43
This randomised crossover study compared the cLMA® to the i-gel® during endotracheal intubation of a manikin. 32 anaesthetists took part in the study. For each device, two intubations took place with the tracheal tube directly over the fibrescope and two used an Aintree Intubation Catheter. Intubation took significantly less time with the i-gel® using both methods. Five oesophageal intubations occurred with the cLMA. Anaesthetists stated a preference for the i-gel® due to the ease of use. The authors conclude that the i-gel® is a more appropriate choice for intubation than the cLMA.
Link to abstract.
Mitchell CA, Riddle ML, Pearson NM, Tauferner DH, Carl R. Annals Of Emergency Medicine 2010;5(3):S25
Study to determine if a bougie could be successfully placed in a cadaver by emergency medicine providers using four supraglottic airway devices: LMA Supreme®, i-gel®, LMA® and KingLT®. Time to placement, confidence in the procedure and correct placement via direct laryngoscopy post-removal were recorded. No great significant differences in most areas, however i-gel® was much quicker than KingLT® to successfully insert, and generally outperformed it. LMA Supreme® and i-gel® considered the better devices for such a procedure, although the authors concede that using a cadaver did inhibit the study.
Kushakovsky V, Ahmad I. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(11): 1262
This letter is a response to a small LMA Supreme® study. The authors say that they have been using the device in patients having nasopharyngeal surgery as it protects the airway from any bleeding and has a gastric channel to remove any blood in the stomach. However, they have reviewed recent research and believe that their current practice may change. In previous studies, the i-gel® has performed as well as the LMA Supreme® even when all i-gel® patients have been given a size 4 device and the LMA Supreme® has been sized correctly. Gastric tube placement in the two devices and the LMA Proseal® is also comparable. The authors are considering the use of the i-gel® or ProSealTM instead of the SupremeTM.
Link to abstract.