i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC, Cha YJ. Anaesthesia. 2014 Nov;69(11):1258-65

A review of 9 randomised controlled trials suggested that clinical performance of i-gel was similar to LMA, save for leak pressure and fibreoptic view, both of which favoured i-gel.

Link to abstract

Kim H, Lee JY, Lee SY, Park SY, Lee SC, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Nov;67(5):317-22

100 patients were randomly assigned to either device group, with insertion success rate, leak pressure and postoperative complications among results measured. i-gel demonstrated higher leak pressure, but a longer insertion time.

Link to abstract

Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014 Oct;24(10):1072-9

A total of nine studies were included using search keywords, with results finding that i-gel gave significantly higher leak pressure and ProSeal. Authors conclude it is an effective alternative to ProSeal and cLMA.

Link to abstract

de Montblanc J, Ruscio L, Mazoit JX, Benhamou D. Anaesthesia. 2014 Oct;69(10):1151-62

31 adult randomised controlled trials on i-gel against the LMA were assessed, finding that the main clinical advantage of i-gel was less frequent sore throat.

Link to abstract

Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi S. J Anesth. 2014 Oct;28(5):676-80

Insertion time and successful ventilation rate were measured, with the latter unaffected by chest compression. 

Link to abstract