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.

Kushakovsky V, Ahmad I. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(11): 1262

This letter is a response to a small LMA Supreme® study. The authors say that they have been using the device in patients having nasopharyngeal surgery as it protects the airway from any bleeding and has a gastric channel to remove any blood in the stomach. However, they have reviewed recent research and believe that their current practice may change. In previous studies, the i-gel® has performed as well as the LMA Supreme® even when all i-gel® patients have been given a size 4 device and the LMA Supreme® has been sized correctly. Gastric tube placement in the two devices and the LMA Proseal® is also comparable. The authors are considering the use of the i-gel® or ProSealTM instead of the SupremeTM.

Link to abstract.

Francksen H, Renner J, Hanss R, Scholz J, Doerges V, Bein B. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(10): 1118-1124

In this study, 80 patients were randomly allocated to either i-gel® or LMA-Unique® insertion before minor surgery. Ventilation, insertion time, airway pressure, leak pressure and postoperative sore throat were all measured. Results were similar for all parameters other than airway leak pressure, which was significantly higher in the i-gel® (mean pressure 29cm H2O compared to 18cm H2O). Both devices are acceptable for use in securing an airway, however the increased leak pressure is an advantage for the i-gel®.

Link to abstract.

Ghai A, Saini S, Hooda S. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(10): 1151

This letter is a response to Baxter’s 2008 report of lightened anaesthesia due to a leak from the gastric channel of the i-gel®. The authors found that they experienced similar problems with the LMA Supreme®. No glottic structures were visualised on fibreoscopy through the airway channel, and through the gastric channel, it revealed the tip in front of the glottis rather than the oesophagus.

Link to abstract.

Drolet P. Can J Anesth 2009; 56(10): 715-720

This article discusses the gastric channel or drain tube as a safety feature provided in supraglottic airways. Although pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is a relatively rare event, it can be made rarer with the use of devices that include a gastric channel, particularly if they are inserted using a bougie. i-gel® is discussed.

Link to abstract.