i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC, Cha YJ. Anaesthesia. 2014 Nov;69(11):1258-65

A review of 9 randomised controlled trials suggested that clinical performance of i-gel was similar to LMA, save for leak pressure and fibreoptic view, both of which favoured i-gel.

Link to abstract

Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014 Oct;24(10):1072-9

A total of nine studies were included using search keywords, with results finding that i-gel gave significantly higher leak pressure and ProSeal. Authors conclude it is an effective alternative to ProSeal and cLMA.

Link to abstract

de Montblanc J, Ruscio L, Mazoit JX, Benhamou D. Anaesthesia. 2014 Oct;69(10):1151-62

31 adult randomised controlled trials on i-gel against the LMA were assessed, finding that the main clinical advantage of i-gel was less frequent sore throat.

Link to abstract

Reza Hashemian SM, Nouraei N, Razavi SS, Zaker E, Jafari A, Eftekhari P, Radmand G, Mohajerani SA, Radpay B. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014 Oct-Dec;4(4):288-92

64 patients assigned to either i-gel or cLMA groups in this randomised controlled trial. Results showed i-gel was 'significantly' quicker to insert.

Link to abstract

Kim MS, Oh JT, Min JY, Lee KH, Lee JR. Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr;69(4):362-7

54 infants were allocated with success rate at first attempt and fibreoptic views measured. First-attempt success was 100% for i-gel, compared to 69 in LMA.

Link to abstract