i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Chauhan G, Nayar P, Seth A, Gupta K, Panwar M, Agrawal N. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol 2013; 29(1): 56-60

Prospective, randomised study conducted in 80 fasted patients, split equally between i-gel® and PLMA, of ASA grades I/II. Ease and speed of insertions were primary outcomes measured, with i-gel® significantly quicker and easier than PLMA. Post-operative complications also lower in i-gel® group.

Link to abstract

Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Baek SJ, Kim KH. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012; 63(6): 510-4

Adult patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy were split into two groups of 30 and randomly assigned to either PLMA or i-gel®. Insertion time and number of attempts were recorded. After successful insertion in all patients in both groups, on first attempt, airway leak pressure was also measured. No significant difference in insertion time or leak pressure. Authors conclude that i-gel® is a reasonable alternative to PLMA in this scenario. 

Abstract text

Kim YH. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 63(6): 489-490

Review assessing the use of SGAs in patients with increased risk of aspiration, focusing on five devices and the evidence to date. Provides a review of the common features of SGAs, including i-gel®, and the benefits they may bring. Author appears critical of the practice of using these devices, however later states that pulmonary aspiration may occur more through user error rather than device failure.

Abstract text

Gasteiger L, Brimacombe J, Oswald E, Perkhofer D, Tonin A, Keller C, Tiefenthaler W. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2012; 56(10): 1321-1324

Fifty-one children aged 1.5-6 years, weighing 10-25kg, were studied randomly using either the size 2 LMA ProSeal® or i-gel®. The hypothesis tested was that oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic position of the airway tube differ between the two devices, with results proving similar.

Link to abstract.

Mitra S, Das B, Jamil SN. North American Journal Of Medical Sciences 2012; 4(10): 453-7

Investigation on the usefulness of paediatric i-gel® size 2.5 against the PLMA equivalent in 60 randomly assigned patients due for anaesthetised elective surgery. Leak pressure was the primary outcome recorded, with further results for ease of insertion, hemodynamic data and postoperative complications also measured. Most areas offered no significant difference, although i-gel® proved easier to insert and recorded a higher leak pressure. Due to author-defined parameters such as cost-effectiveness, they deduce that i-gel® ‘must be more frequently used’.

Link to abstract.