i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Yeoh TY, Chan KB, Yeo LS, Liu EH, Pan TL. J Anesth. 2015 Apr;29(2):295-8

An evaluation of 70 children undergoing general anaesthesia, with insertion time, leak pressure and gastric tube insertion among the results. Overall insertion success was 96%.

Link to abstract

Pant D, Koul A, Sharma B, Sood J. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Apr;25(4):386-91

Forty children 2-5kg in body weight were allocated to either i-gel or LMA Classic groups, with oropharyngeal seal pressure the primary outcome measured. Results showed that i-gel OSP was higher and statistically significant.

Link to abstract

Pournajafian A, Alimian M, Rokhtabnak F, Ghodraty M, Mojri M. Anesth Pain Med. 2015 Mar 30;5(2):e22068

A single-blind randomised trial on 61 patients allocated into i-gel and LMA Classic groups. Airway placement was categorised into three groups: first, second and third attempts. Success rate, insertion time and postoperative complications were measured. i-gel a 'good alternative' to cLMA in this scenario.

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