i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Kim H, Lee JY, Lee SY, Park SY, Lee SC, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Nov;67(5):317-22

100 patients were randomly assigned to either device group, with insertion success rate, leak pressure and postoperative complications among results measured. i-gel demonstrated higher leak pressure, but a longer insertion time.

Link to abstract

de Montblanc J, Ruscio L, Mazoit JX, Benhamou D. Anaesthesia. 2014 Oct;69(10):1151-62

31 adult randomised controlled trials on i-gel against the LMA were assessed, finding that the main clinical advantage of i-gel was less frequent sore throat.

Link to abstract

Sen I, Bhardwaj N, Latha Y. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Oct;30(4):572-3

Use of NPA to aid removal of i-gel was evaluated in 20 adult patients - in 17 the device was inserted at the first attempt. No complications such as gagging and laryngospasm were noted during insertion or removal of i-gel.

Link to abstract

Reza Hashemian SM, Nouraei N, Razavi SS, Zaker E, Jafari A, Eftekhari P, Radmand G, Mohajerani SA, Radpay B. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014 Oct-Dec;4(4):288-92

64 patients assigned to either i-gel or cLMA groups in this randomised controlled trial. Results showed i-gel was 'significantly' quicker to insert.

Link to abstract

Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi SI. J Anesth 2014; 28(5): 676-80

A group of 20 novice physicians inserted the named devices into manikins with or without chest compressions, whereupon insertion time and successful ventilation rate were measured. In cases of successful ventilation, blind tracheal intubation via the inserted device was performed. Chest compression did not significantly decrease ventilation success rates in each device, however insertion time with i-gel® did suffer, according to the authors.

Link to abstract