i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Smith P, Bailey CR. Anaesthesia. 2015 Jan;70(1):84-92

Review of 62 published articles, including 14 randomised controlled trials, comparing i-gel with other supraglottic airway devices in children. Leak pressure was found to be the most common primary outcome. Authors conclude i-gel is 'at least equivalent' to other devices, and may give higher leak pressures and improved fibreoptic view of the glottis.

Link to abstract