i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Van Zundert TC, Brimacombe JR. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2012; 63(1): 35-41

Random allocation of 150 patients to either i-gel®, LMA ProSeal® or LMA Supreme® to compare, primarily, oropharyngeal leak pressure and changes in pressure between 30 and 60 minutes after insertion. Results in this case showed that there were no significant differences in leak pressure.

Abstract text

Weber U, Oguz R, Potura LA, Kimberger O, Kober A, Tschernko E. Anaesthesia 2011; 66(6): 481-487

In this crossover study, 50 adult patients with BMI 25-35kg/m2 were assigned to ventilation with the i-gel® and the LMA Unique® in random order. Insertion attempts, difficulty (on a scale of 1-4), time to insertion and leak pressure were measured with each device. Leak pressure was higher with the i-gel®, with a mean value of 23.7cm H2O compared to 17.4cm H2O with the LMA Unique®. Within the study population, there was a bigger difference in leak pressures amongst patients with BMI >30. Insertion was generally comparable, although the i-gel® had a significantly shorter insertion time.

Abstract text

Donaldson W, Abraham A, Deighan M, Michalek P. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2011; 155(2): 155–164

Devices were generally comparable with high overall and first-attempt success rates. The i-gel® had a significantly higher seal pressure (30.4 compared to 27.8cm H2O) and a lower incidence of postoperative complications.

Abstract text

Stroumpoulis K, Isaia C, Bassiakou E, Pantazapoulos I, Troupis G, Mazarakis A, Demestiha T, Xanthos T. Eur J Emerg Med 2011; 19(1): 24-7

116 volunteer doctors were assigned to either a novice or experienced group depending on their level of LMA® insertion experience. After a brief training session the volunteers were randomly allocated to insertion of the cLMA and i-gel® in a manikin. Success rate, insertion time and perceived ease of use were recorded. Success rate on the first attempt was significantly higher with the i-gel® in both user groups. The i-gel® produced similar success rates for novices and experienced users, but the cLMA had a lower success rate amongst novices. All insertions were successful by the second attempt. Insertion time was significantly shorter with the i-gel®, although the authors note that this may be due to the lack of an inflatable cuff.

Abstract text

Cook T, Howes B. CEACCP 2010; 11 (2): 56-61

This review article looks at the evidence for the efficacy of supraglottic airway devices. The authors use the cLMA as a standard for comparison. The ProSealTM, i-gel®, LMA Supreme® and LTS Mk. IITM are all discussed. Most of the i-gel® literature is positive and shows a high level of successful use. However, more clinical trials need to take place in order to confirm these findings.

Link to abstract.