Magne C, Pichenot V, Didier P, Bérard L, Lejus-Bourdeau C. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016 Sep 23
Size 1 and 1.5 were used in this study on patients under the age of two. Successful insertion at the first attempt was recorded in 75% of cases.
Link to abstract
4f4e61e6-04c4-4dbc-8eb0-95efd00e43e1|1|1.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Saito T, Chew ST, Liu WL, Thinn KK, Asai T, Ti LK. Br J Anaesth. 2016 Sep; 117 Suppl 1: i83-i86
By using previously reported derivation data, a score was validated in 5532 patients ranging between 0 and 7 points. Under this format, the authors conclude the scoring system to be easy to perform and reliable.
Link to abstract.
51b22f67-c061-4913-8ff1-8186421a4fa6|1|5.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Byon HJ, Song J, Shinn HK, Song K, Lee C, Lim H. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016 Sep;82(9):950-6
Patients were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or intubation group and induced using propofol or sevoflurane. Peak QTc interval was lowever in the i-gel group. Authors conclude the i-gel 'may be advantageous' to patients at risk of QTc prolongation.
Link to abstract
bb3fd1c8-41f2-4550-ac72-539332e0196f|1|2.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Vaidya S, Kundra P, Gopalakrishnan S, Parida P, Yuvaraj K, Mohan PM. J Voice. 2016 Sep;30(5):631-7
90 adult patients were randomly assigned to LMA Proseal and i-gel groups, with voice evaluated using perceptive and acousitc analysis. In both groups voice results deteriorated comparably.
Link to abstract
6a434462-261c-4c73-a1c7-8ed958bcbf43|1|4.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Maitra S, Baidya DK, Arora MK, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P. J Clin Anesth. 2016 Sep;33:298-305
Meta-analysis of 10 RCTs to assess results when comparing the oropharyngeal leak pressure of each device. LMA ProSeal returned more favourable results, although i-gel deemed easier to insert. ProSeal also reported higher blood staining.
Link to abstract.
3310add3-60be-41d8-a7ac-f3cbb0424fc8|1|4.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c