i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

A randomised crossover comparison of manikin ventilation through Soft Seal®, i-gelTM and AuraOnceTM supraglottic airway devices by surf lifeguards

Adelborg K, Al-Mashhadi RH, Nielsen LH, Dalgas C, Mortensen MB and Løfgren B. Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr; 69(4): 343-7

Forty lifeguards took part in this manikin study, where time to ventilation and proportion of successful ventilations (both with and without ‘concurrent’ chest compressions) were measured. Mean time to ventilate with i-gel® was 15.6 seconds, compared to 35.2 for Soft Seal and 35.1 for AuraOnce. Authors concluded that ‘most lifeguards preferred the i-gel®’.

Link to abstract

i-gel™ in Ambulatory Surgery: A Comparison with LMA-ProSeal™ in Paralyzed Anaesthetized Patients.

Das A, Majumdar S, Mukherjee A, Mitra T, Kundu R, Hajra BK, Mukherjee D, Das B. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Mar;8(3):80-4

Ease of insertion and time taken to placement and post-operative complications were measured. i-gel was easier to insert with a shorter insertion time.

Link to abstract

 

Use of extraglottic airways in patients undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery without the need for tracheal intubation

Suhitharan T, Teoh WH. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013 Oct;7(4):436-41

Ransomised control trial comparing LMA Supreme with i-gel in 70 patients, with leak pressure, insertion success rates and leak fractions among the outcomes measured. While no post-operative complications were reported with i-gel, three patients suffered mild sore throat and one had mucosal injury in the Supreme group. i-gel had a higher but 'clinically inconsequential' leak fraction.

Link to abstract

Comparison of clinical performance of the I-gel® with LMA Proseal®

Chauhan G, Nayar P, Seth A, Gupta K, Panwar M, Agrawal N. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol 2013; 29(1): 56-60

Prospective, randomised study conducted in 80 fasted patients, split equally between i-gel® and PLMA, of ASA grades I/II. Ease and speed of insertions were primary outcomes measured, with i-gel® significantly quicker and easier than PLMA. Post-operative complications also lower in i-gel® group.

Link to abstract

Comparison of the Proseal LMA® and intersurgical I-gel® during gynecological laparoscopy

Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Baek SJ, Kim KH. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012; 63(6): 510-4

Adult patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy were split into two groups of 30 and randomly assigned to either PLMA or i-gel®. Insertion time and number of attempts were recorded. After successful insertion in all patients in both groups, on first attempt, airway leak pressure was also measured. No significant difference in insertion time or leak pressure. Authors conclude that i-gel® is a reasonable alternative to PLMA in this scenario. 

Abstract text