i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Lee YC, Yoon KS, Park SY, Choi SR, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018 Feb;71(1):37-42. 

In this study the performance of the i-gel and the LMA Supreme was evaluated in infants (ASA I and II) undergoing general anaesthesia. 60 patients were randomly assigned to the i-gel and the LMAS and the size of the devices was selected in accordance to the infant’s weight. A range of parameters including oropharyngeal leak pressure (primary outcome), fiberoptic view, airway quality, airway manipulations, insertion success rate and time (secondary outcomes) were investigated to determine the efficacy and safety of the two devices. Insertion time was shorter for the i-gel group.

Link to abstract.

Pant D, Koul A, Sharma B, Sood J. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Apr;25(4):386-91

Forty children 2-5kg in body weight were allocated to either i-gel or LMA Classic groups, with oropharyngeal seal pressure the primary outcome measured. Results showed that i-gel OSP was higher and statistically significant.

Link to abstract

Galderisi A, De Bernardo G, Lorenzon E, Trevisanuto D. BMJ Case Rep. 2015 Mar 25;2015

Successful report of an infant resuscitated at birth using a size 1 i-gel, positioned by a trainee paediatrician at first attempt, after failed face-mask ventilation.

Link to abstract

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

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