i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Uppal V, Gangaiah S, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103(6): 882-885

In this study, the i-gel® and LMA Unique® were both used in 39 patients. Leak pressure, insertion attempts, number of airway manipulations and leak volumes were similar for both devices. Insertion time was significantly less for the i-gel® at 12.2s compared to 15.2s for the LMA Unique®. It can be concluded that the i-gel® is a reasonable alternative to the LMA Unique® during controlled ventilation.

Link to abstract.

Uppal V, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102(2): 264-8

In this study, published in the BJA, twenty-five patients were given a standard anaesthetic, followed by insertion of an i-gel. The lungs were ventilated at three different pressures and the difference between the inspired and expired tidal volumes used to calculate the leak volume and leak fraction. The i-gel was then removed and replaced with a conventional tracheal tube, for which similar readings were taken. The results were then compared. From the data taken, the authors concluded that, ‘compared with a tracheal tube there is no significant difference in the gas leak when using an i-gel during PCV with moderate airway pressures’.

Link to abstract.

Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T, Bogusch G, Mager G, Kerner T. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102(1): 135-139

The three supraglottic devices were inserted into eight unfixed cadaver models with exposed oesophagi, connected to a water column producing both a slow and fast oesophageal pressure increase. During a fast increase of oesophageal pressure (simulated vomiting procedure) with the oesophageal lumen of the i-gel® and pLMA open, the authors reported that ‘the entire oesophageal liquid was drained to the outside without any tracheal aspiration occurring.’

Link to abstract.

Gatward JJ, Thomas MJC, Nolan JP, Cook TM. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100(3): 351-356

In this study, 40 volunteer doctors regularly involved in CPR, were timed inserting four different airway devices, including i-gel® and a tracheal tube, with and without stopping chest compressions. Comparison of the speed of insertion of the different devices during CPR allowed ranking of the devices. The i-gel® was inserted approximately 50% faster than the other devices tested.

Link to abstract.

Gibbison B, Cook TM, Seller C. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100(3): 415-417

Regurgitation of gastric contents was seen in three low-risk patients during anaesthesia. In two patients where only low volumes of gastric fluid were seen flowing from the i-gel®, there was no sign of aspiration. An 85kg male patient regurgitated large amounts of liquid, and although this was mostly expelled from the i-gel®’s gastric channel there were signs of minor aspiration. The i-gel® allowed early identification of regurgitation in these cases.

Link to abstract.