i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

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

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

Polat R, Aydin GB, Ergil J, Sayin M, Kokulu T, Ozturk I. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015 Sep-Oct;65(5):343-8

Performance of i-gel vs LMA Classic was measured in 120 patients, with respect to successful insertion attempts, insertion time, peak airway pressure, regurgitation, fibreoptic glottic view and postoperative complications. i-gel gave a shorter insertion time and better fibreoptic view.

Link to abstract 

Moore A, Gregoire-Bertrand F, Massicotte N, Gauthier A, Lallo A, Ruel M, Todorov A, Girard F. Anesth Analg. 2015 Aug;121(2):430-6

120 patients were randomly assigned to i-gel or LMA Fastrach groups, with tracheal intubation and mask insertion success rate measured. Use of i-gel as a conduit in this scenario is equivalent to Fastrach, however gives shorter intubation times and a better visualisation of the glottic opening.

Link to abstract