i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Kim MS, Lee JH, Han SW, Im YJ, Kang HJ, Lee JR. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Apr;25(4):405-12

Eighty children were split between each device group, with leak pressure and fibreoptic view assessed at three intervals. i-gel was 'significantly easier' to insert and had high pressures at all measurement points.

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

Kohama H, Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi S. Pediatr Int. 2015;57(1):180-2

Study on performance of air-Q, Ambu Aura-i and i-gel in a manikin simulation, undertaken by 22 novice physicians. Rate of success and insertion time with and without chest compressions were measured.

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