i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

A prospective study to evaluate and compare laryngeal mask airway ProSeal and i-gel airway in the prone position

Taxak S, Gopinath A, Saini S, Bansal T, Ahlawat MS, Bala M. Saudi J Anaesth. 2015 Oct-Dec;9(4):446-50

40 patients were allocated to either the i-gel or ProSeal group. Insertion of i-gel on first attempt was successful in 17 of 20 patients, compared to 16 for ProSeal, and was faster to insert. Authors conclude ProSeal provided the better seal but insertion was easier with i-gel.

Link to abstract

Small is the new big: An overview of newer supraglottic airways for children

Goyal R. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Oct-Dec;31(4):440-9

Overview of currently available options in paediatric sizes, suitability of each, published data and general concerns regarding their use.

Link to abstract

Effect of pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenberg position on oropharyngeal sealing pressure of I-gel™ and ProSeal LMA™ in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Mishra SK, Sivaraman B, Balachander H, Naggapa M, Parida S, Bhat RR, Yuvaraj K. Anesth Essays Res. 2015 Sep-Dec;9(3):353-8

60 patients were enrolled to either i-gel or ProSeal groups, with the primary objective to compare sealing pressure. Authors conclude ProSeal gave a better seal.

Link to abstract

Comparing performance of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and I-gel in anesthetized adult patients

Zhang JQ, Meng FM, Xue FS, Li RP. Saudi Med J. 2015 Sep;36(9):1130

Questions raised as to the interpretation of results given, particularly user experience and insertion method of ProSeal. Response from original study author is also declared within.

Link to abstract

Comparison of Second-Generation Supraglottic Airway Devices (i-gel versus LMA ProSeal) During Elective Surgery in Children

Sanket B, Ramavakoda CY,Nishtala MR, Ravishankar CK, Ganigara A. AANA J. 2015 Aug;83(4):275-80

Study to compare efficacy of each device on patients aged up to 10 years. Ease of insertion, time to insertion and oropharyngeal leak pressure were some of the measurements taken. Insertion time was significantly faster with i-gel.

Link to abstract