i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Pre-hospital i-gel blind intubation for trauma: a simulation study

Kim JG, Kim W, Kang GH, Jang YS, Choi HY, Kim H, Kim M. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2018 Mar 30;5(1):29-34. 

This prospective randomised crossover study was carried out to evaluate the performance and efficacy of the i-gel blind intubation (IGI) in airway management for pre-hospital trauma patients. Here, two blind intubation techniques were assessed (by 18 paramedics) using two supraglottic airway devices (IGI and LMA Fastrach) and a Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL).

Link to abstract.

Randomized comparison of the i-gel(TM) with the LMA Supreme (TM) in anesthetized adult patients

Beleña JM, Núñez M, Vidal A, Gasco C, Alcojor A, Lee P, Pérez JL. Anaesthesist. 2015 Apr;64(4):271-6

140 patients split into device groups, with speed of insertion, success rates, leak pressure and tidal volume evaluated. i-gel proved quicker to insert and generally the results were comparable.

Link to abstract.

Magnetic resonance imaging study of the in vivo position of the extraglottic airway devices i-gel® and LMA Supreme® in anaesthetized human volunteers

Russo SG, Cremer S, Eich C, Jipp M, Cohnen J, Strack M, Quintel M & Mohr A. BR J Anaesth 2012; 109(6): 996-1004

This randomized cross-over study of 12 volunteer patients was conducted primarily to measure the in situ position of the LMA Supreme® and i-gel® via MRI scan. Position was also assessed functionally and optically by fibrescope. Results showed that the devices differed significantly: the LMA Supreme® protruded deeper into the oesophageal sphincter, whilst i-gel® caused greater compression of the tongue. Glottic aperture reduction and hyoid bone displacement were also measured. Authors deem the results relevent to the risk of aspiration, glottic narrowing, airway resistance and soft-tissue morbidity.

Link to abstract.