i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

A comprehensive list of all known published clinical evidence on the device

Comparison of i-gel® and LMA Supreme® during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Park SY, Rim JC, Kim H, Lee JH, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015 Oct;68(5):455-61

93 patients were allocated into i-gel or LMA Supreme groups, with insertion time, attempts and fibreoptic view of glottis recorded. No significant differences were recorded.

Link to abstract

Comparison of the i-gel™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic™ in terms of clinical performance

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 

 

Effect of pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenberg position on oropharyngeal sealing pressure of I-gel™ and ProSeal LMA™ in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: A randomized controlled trial

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

Comparing performance of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and I-gel in anesthetized adult patients

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

Comparison of Second-Generation Supraglottic Airway Devices (i-gel versus LMA ProSeal) During Elective Surgery in Children

Sanket B, Ramavakoda CY,Nishtala MR, Ravishankar CK, Ganigara A. AANA J. 2015 Aug;83(4):275-80

Study to compare efficacy of each device on patients aged up to 10 years. Ease of insertion, time to insertion and oropharyngeal leak pressure were some of the measurements taken. Insertion time was significantly faster with i-gel.

Link to abstract