i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Emergency airway management by paramedics: comparison between standard endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask airway, and I-gel

Leventis C, Chalkias A, Sampanis MA, Foulidou X, Xanthos T. Eur J Emerg Med. 2014 Oct;21(5):371-3

72 briefly-trained paramedics were allocated to intubate a manikin. Success rate was higher, and insertion time 'significantly' shorter for the i-gel group.

Link to abstract

 

Emergency airway management by paramedics: comparison between standard endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask airway, and I-gel

Leventis C, Chalkias A, Sampanis M A, Foulidou X, Xanthos T. Eur J Emerg Med. 2014 Oct; 21(5): 371-3

Study to investigate intubation skill levels of 72 paramedics using ETI, LMA and i-gel® in a manikin model. The success rate was higher, and the insertion time lower for those using i-gel®. There was a ‘statistically significant association’ between experience level and insertion time of LMA. Authors conclude that paramedics should ‘lay greater emphasis on airway management using supraglottic devices, especially i-gel®’.

Link to abstract

A comparison of the i-gel® and classic LMA® insertion in manikins by experienced and novice physicians

Stroumpoulis K, Isaia C, Bassiakou E, Pantazapoulos I, Troupis G, Mazarakis A, Demestiha T, Xanthos T. Eur J Emerg Med 2011; 19(1): 24-7

116 volunteer doctors were assigned to either a novice or experienced group depending on their level of LMA® insertion experience. After a brief training session the volunteers were randomly allocated to insertion of the cLMA and i-gel® in a manikin. Success rate, insertion time and perceived ease of use were recorded. Success rate on the first attempt was significantly higher with the i-gel® in both user groups. The i-gel® produced similar success rates for novices and experienced users, but the cLMA had a lower success rate amongst novices. All insertions were successful by the second attempt. Insertion time was significantly shorter with the i-gel®, although the authors note that this may be due to the lack of an inflatable cuff.

Abstract text