i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Kohama H, Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi S. Pediatr Int. 2015;57(1):180-2

Study on performance of air-Q, Ambu Aura-i and i-gel in a manikin simulation, undertaken by 22 novice physicians. Rate of success and insertion time with and without chest compressions were measured.

Link to abstract

Mukadder S, Zekine B, Erdogan KG, Ulku O, Muharrem U, Saim Y, Mahmut D. ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:634320

105 patients were randomly distributed between the three device groups. Initial leak pressure, insertion time, ease of placement and airway morbidity results all favoured the i-gel.

Link to abstract

Kayhan GE, Begec Z, Sanli M, Gedik E, Durmus M. ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:426186

50 patients were split between the two groups, with airway leak pressure the primary outcome measured. No significant differences were found here, however i-gel insertion time was shorter.

Link to abstract

Mishra SK, Nawaz M, Satyapraksh MV, Parida S, Bidkar PU, Hemavathy B, Kundra P. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2015;2015:705869

After induction of anaesthesia and device insertion, head position was ranomly changed from neutral to flexion, extension and lateral rotation. Leak pressure, fibreoptic view and ventilation scores were among the results measured. Effective ventilation can be performed with both devices, but 'extreme precaution' should be taken in flexion position in ProSeal.

Link to abstract

El-Radaideh K, Alhowary AA, Bani Hani D. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2015;2015:971059

Patients were evenly distributed between the two device groups, with ease and number of insertions, insertion speed and leak pressure amongst outcomes measured. SLIPA appeared to be quicker to insert, however blood staining incidence was higher.

Link to abstract