i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Peker G, Takmaz SA, Baltacı B, Başar H, Kotanoğlu M. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2015 Oct;43(5):304-12

Prospective, randomised study on 60 children aged 1-10 years. Insertion attempts and ease, leak pressure and complications were recorded. Results suggest no difference between the devices under these conditions.

Link to abstract

Arı DE, Ar AY, Karip CŞ, Siyahkoç İ, Arslan AH, Akgün FN. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2015 Oct;43(5):299-303

Insertion time and successful first attempt incidence were measured within the 50 patients assigned to the device groups. i-gel was quicker to insert with other results 'did not differ'. Authors conclude i-gel may be 'a more advantageous' device compared with LMA.

Link to abstract

Badheka JP, Jadliwala RM, Chhaya VA, Parmar VS, Vasani A, Rajyaguru AM. J Minim Access Surg. 2015 Oct-Dec;11(4):251-6

60 patients were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or ETT group. Ease, insertion attempts and insertion time were measured, followed by gastric tube insertion attempts and perioperative complications. i-gel was quicker to insert and is a safe and suitable alternative to ETT in this scenario.

Link to abstract

Cook TM. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Oct;115(4):633-4

Letter to the editor recommending that the term 'third generation' used when describing supraglottic airway devices is abandoned due to the confusion over the design features that determine the device's advancement. The author makes further suggestion as to how devices should be classified.

Link to abstract

Taxak S, Gopinath A, Saini S, Bansal T, Ahlawat MS, Bala M. Saudi J Anaesth. 2015 Oct-Dec;9(4):446-50

40 patients were allocated to either the i-gel or ProSeal group. Insertion of i-gel on first attempt was successful in 17 of 20 patients, compared to 16 for ProSeal, and was faster to insert. Authors conclude ProSeal provided the better seal but insertion was easier with i-gel.

Link to abstract