i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Zhang JQ, Meng FM, Xue FS, Li RP. Saudi Med J. 2015 Sep;36(9):1130

Questions raised as to the interpretation of results given, particularly user experience and insertion method of ProSeal. Response from original study author is also declared within.

Link to abstract

Polat R, Aydin GB, Ergil J, Sayin M, Kokulu T, Ozturk I. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015 Sep-Oct;65(5):343-8

Performance of i-gel vs LMA Classic was measured in 120 patients, with respect to successful insertion attempts, insertion time, peak airway pressure, regurgitation, fibreoptic glottic view and postoperative complications. i-gel gave a shorter insertion time and better fibreoptic view.

Link to abstract 

Moore A, Gregoire-Bertrand F, Massicotte N, Gauthier A, Lallo A, Ruel M, Todorov A, Girard F. Anesth Analg. 2015 Aug;121(2):430-6

120 patients were randomly assigned to i-gel or LMA Fastrach groups, with tracheal intubation and mask insertion success rate measured. Use of i-gel as a conduit in this scenario is equivalent to Fastrach, however gives shorter intubation times and a better visualisation of the glottic opening.

Link to abstract 

Sanket B, Ramavakoda CY,Nishtala MR, Ravishankar CK, Ganigara A. AANA J. 2015 Aug;83(4):275-80

Study to compare efficacy of each device on patients aged up to 10 years. Ease of insertion, time to insertion and oropharyngeal leak pressure were some of the measurements taken. Insertion time was significantly faster with i-gel.

Link to abstract

Ashay NA, Wasim S, Anil TB. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Jul-Sep;31(3):324-8

This randomised controlled trial compared propofol requirements for i-gel and LMA Classic when inserted 60 seconds after injection. i-gel required a significantly lower dose.

Link to abstract