i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Evaluation of I-gel™ airway in different head and neck positions in anesthetized paralyzed children

Jain D, Ghai B, Bala I, Gandhi K, Banerjee G. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25(12):1248-53

30 children induced with sevoflurane in oxygen and administered atracurium intravenously. Oropharyngeal leak pressure in neutral, maximum flexion and maximum extension were primary outcomes measured. In extreme flexion of head and neck, caution is warranted during ventilation.

Link to abstract

A comparative study of Laryngeal Mask Airway size 1 vs. i-gel size 1 in infants undergoing daycare procedures

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

A randomized comparison of the i-gel with the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children

Kim MS, Lee JH, Han SW, Im YJ, Kang HJ, Lee JR. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Apr;25(4):405-12

Eighty children were split between each device group, with leak pressure and fibreoptic view assessed at three intervals. i-gel was 'significantly easier' to insert and had high pressures at all measurement points.

Link to abstract 

Evaluation of i-gel(™) airway in children: a meta-analysis

Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014 Oct;24(10):1072-9

A total of nine studies were included using search keywords, with results finding that i-gel gave significantly higher leak pressure and ProSeal. Authors conclude it is an effective alternative to ProSeal and cLMA.

Link to abstract

A randomized equivalence trial comparing the i-gel® and laryngeal mask airway Supreme in children

Jagannathan N, Sommers K, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Shah RD, Mukherji II, Miller S, Voronov P, Seraphin S. Paediatr Anaesth.; 23(2): 127-33

Total of 170 children were assigned to either the i-gel® or LMA Supreme®, with leak pressure the primary outcome measured. Secondary evaluations included insertion time, insertion success rate, fibreoptic view and complications, to name a few. Resulting median leak pressure was higher with i-gel® and the authors conclude it could be a ‘useful alternative to the Supreme®’.

Link to abstract.