i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Arı DE, Ar AY, Karip CŞ, Siyahkoç İ, Arslan AH, Akgün FN. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2015 Oct;43(5):299-303

Insertion time and successful first attempt incidence were measured within the 50 patients assigned to the device groups. i-gel was quicker to insert with other results 'did not differ'. Authors conclude i-gel may be 'a more advantageous' device compared with LMA.

Link to abstract

Badheka JP, Jadliwala RM, Chhaya VA, Parmar VS, Vasani A, Rajyaguru AM. J Minim Access Surg. 2015 Oct-Dec;11(4):251-6

60 patients were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or ETT group. Ease, insertion attempts and insertion time were measured, followed by gastric tube insertion attempts and perioperative complications. i-gel was quicker to insert and is a safe and suitable alternative to ETT in this scenario.

Link to abstract

Cook TM. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Oct;115(4):633-4

Letter to the editor recommending that the term 'third generation' used when describing supraglottic airway devices is abandoned due to the confusion over the design features that determine the device's advancement. The author makes further suggestion as to how devices should be classified.

Link to abstract

Gupta B, Gupta S, Hijam B, Shende P, Rewari V. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2015 Oct-Dec;8(4):188-92

Insertion of i-gel, ProSeal and LMA Classic were studied in prone position. Time to insertion, ease of insertion, bronchoscopic view an insertion score were compared. i-gel was the quickest and easiest to insert.

Link to abstract

Bala R, Hazarika A, Pandia MP, Kumar N. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Oct-Dec;31(4):568

Report of failed ProSeal insertion, with i-gel successfully inserted in its place at the first attempt.

Link to abstract