i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

A comprehensive list of all known published clinical evidence on the device

Is i-gel® a new revolution among supraglottic airway devices? - a comparative evaluation

Jindal P, Rizvi A, Sharma JP. Middle East J Anesthesiol. 2009; 20(1): 53-58

This study compared i-gel® to two other supraglottic airways in respect of haemodynamic changes, including heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure and rate pressure product. The authors concluded that ‘i-gel® effectively conforms to the perilaryngeal anatomy despite the lack of an inflatable cuff, it consistently achieves proper positioning for supraglottic ventilation and causes fewer haemodynamic changes as compared to other supraglottic airway devices.’

Link to abstract.

 

A comparison of correct i-gel® placement with and without the aid of a bougie

Gosalia N, Khan RM, Kaul N, Sumant A. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol 2009; 25(3): 345-347

In this study, the i-gel®’s placement and performance were studied for insertions carried out with and without the use of a gum elastic bougie. 50 patients were randomised into two groups. In the first group, the i-gel® was inserted using the standard method. In the second group, a bougie was used to insert the device via the gastric channel. The time taken for insertion and the number of attempts needed were similar for both methods. Leakage and patient discomfort were less common when the bougie was used. The authors conclude that using a bougie improves i-gel® placement without increasing insertion time or adverse effects.

Link to abstract.

 

 

Comparison of clinical performance of i-gel® with LMA Proseal® in elective surgeries

Singh I, Gupta M, Tandon M. Indian J Anaesth 2009; 53(3): 302-305

This clinical investigation into performance of i-gel® compared to another supraglottic airway with gastric access, concluded that i-gel® was easier to insert, required fewer attempts at insertion, had easier gastric tube placement and was less traumatic than the other device tested. Sixty patients were randomly assigned into two groups: Group 1 (n=30) for i-gel® and Group P (n=30). Assessment was made of sealing pressure, ease of insertion, success rate of insertion, ease of gastric tube placement, airway trauma by post operative blood staining of the device, tongue, lip and dental trauma, hoarseness, regurgitation/aspiration and cost effectiveness.

Link to abstract.

 

Evaluation of the size 4 i-gel® airway in one hundred nonparalysed patients

Gatward JJ, Cook TM, Seller C, Handel J, Simpson T, Vanek V, Kelly F. Anaesthesia 2008; 63(10):1124-1130

A study of i-gel® in 100 elective, anaesthetised patients. Parameters assessed included ease of use, positioning, airway quality, seal pressure and complications. First time insertion success was 86%. Median airway leak pressure was 24cm H2O. On fibreoptic examination via the device, the vocal cords were visible in 91% of patients. The incidence of airway obstruction, airway irritation, oropharyngeal trauma and other complications was low. Insertion of the device into the correct position was rapid and easy. The authors concluded that, ‘these attributes would suggest potential roles in anaesthesia, management of the difficult airway and airway management during CPR’. Further studies are now indicated against i-gel®’s likely clinical competitors.

Link to abstract.

 

A new single use supraglottic airway with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: An observational study of the i-gel®

Richez B, Saltel L, Banchereau F, Torrielli R, Cros AM. Anesth Analg. 2008; 106(4): 1137-9

This study on 71 ASA I-II women scheduled for gynaecological surgery, reported a 97% insertion success rate with i-gel®. Mean seal pressure was 30cm H2O. A gastric tube was inserted in 100% of cases. Only one case of coughing and sore throat occurred. The authors concluded that ‘the i-gel® is a reliable, easily inserted airway device that provides an adequate seal with a low morbidity rate.’

Link to abstract.