i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Randomised crossover comparison between the i-gel® and the LMA Unique® in anaesthetised, paralysed adults

Uppal V, Gangaiah S, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103(6): 882-885

In this study, the i-gel® and LMA Unique® were both used in 39 patients. Leak pressure, insertion attempts, number of airway manipulations and leak volumes were similar for both devices. Insertion time was significantly less for the i-gel® at 12.2s compared to 15.2s for the LMA Unique®. It can be concluded that the i-gel® is a reasonable alternative to the LMA Unique® during controlled ventilation.

Link to abstract.

 

 

Comparison of the i-gel® with the cuffed tracheal tube during pressure-controlled ventilation

Uppal V, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102(2): 264-8

In this study, published in the BJA, twenty-five patients were given a standard anaesthetic, followed by insertion of an i-gel. The lungs were ventilated at three different pressures and the difference between the inspired and expired tidal volumes used to calculate the leak volume and leak fraction. The i-gel was then removed and replaced with a conventional tracheal tube, for which similar readings were taken. The results were then compared. From the data taken, the authors concluded that, ‘compared with a tracheal tube there is no significant difference in the gas leak when using an i-gel during PCV with moderate airway pressures’.

Link to abstract.