i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Gasteiger L, Brimacombe J, Perkhofer D, Kaufmann M, Keller C. Anaesthesia 2010; 65(9): 913-916

This study compared the use of the LMA Proseal® and the i-gel® in 152 adult female patients. A duodenal tube guided insertion technique was used for both devices. There was no significant difference between insertion success rates and insertion times of the two devices. Leak pressure was 7cm H2O higher with the ProSeal®, providing a better seal for ventilation.

Link to abstract

Amini S, Khoshfetrat M. Anaesthesia 2010; 65(8): 805-809

120 healthy adult patients were assigned to either the Solus® or i-gel® device for general anaesthesia. Airway quality measures, leak pressure, insertion time and complications were recorded. Both devices performed well and had low incidences of complications. The Solus® laryngeal mask required less airway manipulation, and provided better leak pressures and views of the vocal cords. i-gel® was quicker to insert.

Abstract text

Asai T, Liu EH. Masui 2010; 59(6): 794-797

In this study, the i-gel® was used to ventilate 20 spontaneously breathing adult patients during anaesthesia. Insertion time, success rate, ability to insert a gastric tube and complications (including the presence of blood on the device) were recorded. The i-gel® was inserted on the first attempt in 19 of 20 patients and had a mean insertion time of 12 seconds. Gastric tube insertion was possible in all cases. Removal was uneventful for all patients and did not result in any complications. The authors believe that the i-gel® is a useful device for maintaining the patient airway during general anaesthesia.

Abstract text

Ali A, Sheikh NA, Ali L, Siddique SA. Professional Med J 2010; 17(4): 643-647

100 patients received ventilation via the i-gel® or cLMA during elective surgery. The devices were compared for ease of insertion, insertion time, number of airway manipulations needed and post-operative complications. The devices were generally comparable. More airway manipulations were required with the i-gel®, however this was not a statistically significant increase compared to the cLMA. The incidence of complications was very low, with one case of blood on an i-gel® and one incident of laryngospasm with each device.

Abstract text

Uppal V, Gangaiah S, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103(6): 882-885

In this study, the i-gel® and LMA Unique® were both used in 39 patients. Leak pressure, insertion attempts, number of airway manipulations and leak volumes were similar for both devices. Insertion time was significantly less for the i-gel® at 12.2s compared to 15.2s for the LMA Unique®. It can be concluded that the i-gel® is a reasonable alternative to the LMA Unique® during controlled ventilation.

Link to abstract.