i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC, Cha YJ. Anaesthesia. 2014 Nov;69(11):1258-65

A review of 9 randomised controlled trials suggested that clinical performance of i-gel was similar to LMA, save for leak pressure and fibreoptic view, both of which favoured i-gel.

Link to abstract

Kim H, Lee JY, Lee SY, Park SY, Lee SC, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Nov;67(5):317-22

100 patients were randomly assigned to either device group, with insertion success rate, leak pressure and postoperative complications among results measured. i-gel demonstrated higher leak pressure, but a longer insertion time.

Link to abstract

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

Sadeghnia A, Tanhaei M, Mohammadizadeh M, Nemati M. Adv Biomed Res. 2014 Jul 31;3:160

Randomised control trial on newborns with respiratory distress syndrome, comparing administration of surfactant. Results show that administration using i-gel was more successful than control group and 'could even be promoted to standard care position'. More research needed.

Link to abstract

Kus A, Gok CN, Hosten T, Gurkan Y, Solak M, Toker K. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014 May;31(5):280-4

In this double-blind study, the scenario was made more difficult by using a cervical collar. Primary aim was to compare leak pressures between devices, with success rate, insertion and fibreoptic view other parameters measured. First attempt success and leak pressure was higher with LMA Supreme. Both devices proved effective, and differences may not be clinically significant.

Link to abstract