Schälte G, Bomhard LT, Rossaint R, Coburn M, Stoppe C, Zoremba N, Rieg A. BMJ Open. 2016 May 12;6(5):e010770.
100 participants were presented with a manikin and an airway management package containing a labelled i-gel and a mouthpiece with a filter which connected to the i-gel connector. They were given a sheet of instruction and attempted to ventilate the manikin. Time to ventilation, success rate, i-gel position and direction, and participant age and first aid experience were recorded. Participants rated their success and the ease of use, stated whether they would use the device in an emergency, and stated whether they would feel comfortable performing ventilation with the device. The three devices were generally comparable. However, the i-gel was quicker to insert, most likely due to the lack of inflatable cuff. The incidence and severity of both perioperative and postoperative complications was low.
Link to abstract.
Liu ZJ, Yi J, Chen WY, Zhang XH, Huang YG. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 May;96(19):e6905.
46 doctors with no intubation experience were given 20 minutes of airway training and a short practice session with the i-gel and Aura-I. They were then asked to insert each device into a manikin in random order and to attempt intubation through each airway. Time to ventilation, first-attempt and overall intubation success, incidence of gastric inflation, ease of insertion, view of the vocal cords, and insertion score were all recorded and compared. Participants attempted the same tasks at a 3-month follow-up session. First-attempt and overall success rates for intubation were high and comparable, with only 1 patient failing to intubate via the Aura-I at follow-up. Performance of the devices was generally comparable. Time to intubation was shorter with the i-gel at both time points. Participants also reported that the i-gel was easier to use. These results may be due to the lack of inflatable cuff.
Link to abstract