i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Jadhav PA, Dalvi NP, Tendolkar BA. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Apr-Jun;31(2):221-5

Ease and time to insertion, airway sealing pressure and adverse events were measured in this study of 60 patients randomly allocated to i-gel and ProSeal groups. i-gel proved easier to insert and less traumatic.

Link to abstract

Ekinci O, Abitagaoglu S, Turan G, Sivrikaya Z, Bosna G, Ozgultekin A. Saudi Med J. 2015 Apr;36(4):432-6

Randomised group of 80 patients split into i-gel and ProSeal groups, with insertion time, gastric tube insertion and complications among the results measured. Insertion was easier and quicker with i-gel.

Link to abstract

Henlin T, Sotak M, Kovaricek P, Tyll T, Balcarek L, Michalek P. Biomed Res Int. 2015;201

Prospective, randomised, single-blinded study comparing five supraglottic airway devices (ProSeal LMA, Supreme LMA, SLIPA, Laryngeal Tube Suction-D and i-gel) in low light conditions on 505 patients after induction of general anaesthesia. Insertion time was shortest in Supreme LMA and i-gel groups.

Link to abstract

Mukadder S, Zekine B, Erdogan KG, Ulku O, Muharrem U, Saim Y, Mahmut D. ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:634320

105 patients were randomly distributed between the three device groups. Initial leak pressure, insertion time, ease of placement and airway morbidity results all favoured the i-gel.

Link to abstract

Kayhan GE, Begec Z, Sanli M, Gedik E, Durmus M. ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:426186

50 patients were split between the two groups, with airway leak pressure the primary outcome measured. No significant differences were found here, however i-gel insertion time was shorter.

Link to abstract