i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Quinn AC, Milne D, Columb M, Gorton H and Knight M. Br J Anaesth. 2013 Jan;110(1):74-80

The purpose of this UK-wide study was to further evaluate the predetermined rate that one in 250 obstetric patients suffer failed intubation whilst undergoing general anaesthesia. Due to the lack of national figures, the study used the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) of data collection in centres across the UK to record incidence, risk factors and any reports of failed intubations. All contacted centres responded, equalling 57 completed reports, giving a unit-based estimation of one case in every 224 patients. Univariate analyses also recorded in detail in this report.

Link to abstract.

Russo SG, Cremer S, Eich C, Jipp M, Cohnen J, Strack M, Quintel M & Mohr A. BR J Anaesth 2012; 109(6): 996-1004

This randomized cross-over study of 12 volunteer patients was conducted primarily to measure the in situ position of the LMA Supreme® and i-gel® via MRI scan. Position was also assessed functionally and optically by fibrescope. Results showed that the devices differed significantly: the LMA Supreme® protruded deeper into the oesophageal sphincter, whilst i-gel® caused greater compression of the tongue. Glottic aperture reduction and hyoid bone displacement were also measured. Authors deem the results relevent to the risk of aspiration, glottic narrowing, airway resistance and soft-tissue morbidity.

Link to abstract.

Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Baek SJ, Kim KH. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012; 63(6): 510-4

Adult patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy were split into two groups of 30 and randomly assigned to either PLMA or i-gel®. Insertion time and number of attempts were recorded. After successful insertion in all patients in both groups, on first attempt, airway leak pressure was also measured. No significant difference in insertion time or leak pressure. Authors conclude that i-gel® is a reasonable alternative to PLMA in this scenario. 

Abstract text

Theiler L, Gutzmann M, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Urwyler N, Kaempfen B, Greif R. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109(6): 990-995

Over a period of 24 months, 2049 uses of the i-gel® were measured across five independent hospitals in Switzerland to evaluate insertion success rates, leak pressures, adverse events, and risk factors for failure. Patients’ mean age was 47 years. The authors concluded that the i-gel® is a reliable device, failing in less than 5% of patients and providing high leak pressures. Serious adverse events are rare.

Abstract text

Nishiyama T, Kohno Y, Kim HJ, Shin WJ, Yang HS. The American Journal Of Emergency Medicine 2012; 30(9): 1756- 1759

180 patients were randomised into two equal groups, one for insertion of i-gel® at room temperature, the other at 37 degrees centigrade. Insertion time, number of insertion attempts, inspiratory and leak pressures, and leak fraction were compared. Report found no significant difference between the two groups.

Abstract text