i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Ragazzi R, Finessi L, Farinelli I, Alvisi R, Volta CA. Anaesthesia 2012; 67(4): 384-8

Following a short lecture and manikin training, novice airway users were randomly selected to insert either the LMA Supreme® or i-gel® into 80 patients undergoing breast surgery, to measure insertion success rate and ventilation profile.

Abstract text

Van Zundert TC, Brimacombe JR. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2012; 63(1): 35-41

Random allocation of 150 patients to either i-gel®, LMA ProSeal® or LMA Supreme® to compare, primarily, oropharyngeal leak pressure and changes in pressure between 30 and 60 minutes after insertion. Results in this case showed that there were no significant differences in leak pressure.

Abstract text

Cook T, Howes B. CEACCP 2010; 11 (2): 56-61

This review article looks at the evidence for the efficacy of supraglottic airway devices. The authors use the cLMA as a standard for comparison. The ProSealTM, i-gel®, LMA Supreme® and LTS Mk. IITM are all discussed. Most of the i-gel® literature is positive and shows a high level of successful use. However, more clinical trials need to take place in order to confirm these findings.

Link to abstract.

Mitchell CA, Riddle ML, Pearson NM, Tauferner DH, Carl R. Annals Of Emergency Medicine 2010;5(3):S25

Study to determine if a bougie could be successfully placed in a cadaver by emergency medicine providers using four supraglottic airway devices: LMA Supreme®, i-gel®, LMA® and KingLT®. Time to placement, confidence in the procedure and correct placement via direct laryngoscopy post-removal were recorded. No great significant differences in most areas, however i-gel® was much quicker than KingLT® to successfully insert, and generally outperformed it. LMA Supreme® and i-gel® considered the better devices for such a procedure, although the authors concede that using a cadaver did inhibit the study.

Abstract link

Kushakovsky V, Ahmad I. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(11): 1262

This letter is a response to a small LMA Supreme® study. The authors say that they have been using the device in patients having nasopharyngeal surgery as it protects the airway from any bleeding and has a gastric channel to remove any blood in the stomach. However, they have reviewed recent research and believe that their current practice may change. In previous studies, the i-gel® has performed as well as the LMA Supreme® even when all i-gel® patients have been given a size 4 device and the LMA Supreme® has been sized correctly. Gastric tube placement in the two devices and the LMA Proseal® is also comparable. The authors are considering the use of the i-gel® or ProSealTM instead of the SupremeTM.

Link to abstract.