i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Arevalo-Ludeña J, Arcas-Bellas JJ, Alvarez-Rementería R, Flandes J, Morís L, Muñoz Alameda LE. J Clin Anesth. 2016 Jun;31:137-41

Prospective observational study on 22 patients comparing the use of i-gel against orotracheal intubation. Tidal volume, peak pressure, gas leaks and adverse events were recorded. Authors conclude i-gel is 'an effective and safe alternative' to OTI in this scenario.

Link to abstract

Naik L, Bhardwaj N, Sen IM, Sondekoppam RV. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2016;2016:7318595

Study on 120 patients comparing intubation success through i-gel or ILMA. Overall success rate proved lower with i-gel in this scenario, with no differences in secondary outcomes.

Komasawa N, Nishihara I, Minami T. J Clin Anesth. 2016;28:89-90

In this case of a 13-year-old patient, the i-gel was inserted passed the swollen tonsil to give unventful mechanical ventilation and no postoperative complications or bleeding of the tonsil.

Link to abstract

Arévalo-Ludeña J, Arcas-Bellas JJ, Alvarez-Rementería R, Alameda LE. J Clin Anesth. 2016 Dec;35:287-292

85 patients with at least three difficult airway predictors were included, with insertion time, intubation time and oxygen saturation outcomes measured, amongst others. No serious adverse events were recorded and no airway damage reported. Authors conclude that fibreoptic-guided intubation through the i-gel is a 'safe and effective' technique.

Link to abstract.