i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Jagannathan N, Sommers K, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Shah RD, Mukherji II, Miller S, Voronov P, Seraphin S. Paediatr Anaesth.; 23(2): 127-33

Total of 170 children were assigned to either the i-gel® or LMA Supreme®, with leak pressure the primary outcome measured. Secondary evaluations included insertion time, insertion success rate, fibreoptic view and complications, to name a few. Resulting median leak pressure was higher with i-gel® and the authors conclude it could be a ‘useful alternative to the Supreme®’.

Link to abstract.

Bradley AE, White MC, Engelhardt T, Bayley G, Beringer RM. Paediatr Anaesth. 2013 Nov;23(11):1006-9

In this survey distributed to the members of APAGBI, the current usage of supraglottic airway devices in routine practice and difficult airways in the UK was assessed. Of the 244 members, 88% preferred the use of first-generation devices, with the most important design feature being the availability of a complete range of sizes. 77% would like to see more randomised controlled trials on SAD safety in children.

Link to abstract.

Gasteiger L, Brimacombe J, Oswald E, Perkhofer D, Tonin A, Keller C, Tiefenthaler W. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2012; 56(10): 1321-1324

Fifty-one children aged 1.5-6 years, weighing 10-25kg, were studied randomly using either the size 2 LMA ProSeal® or i-gel®. The hypothesis tested was that oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic position of the airway tube differ between the two devices, with results proving similar.

Link to abstract.

Mitra S, Das B, Jamil SN. North American Journal Of Medical Sciences 2012; 4(10): 453-7

Investigation on the usefulness of paediatric i-gel® size 2.5 against the PLMA equivalent in 60 randomly assigned patients due for anaesthetised elective surgery. Leak pressure was the primary outcome recorded, with further results for ease of insertion, hemodynamic data and postoperative complications also measured. Most areas offered no significant difference, although i-gel® proved easier to insert and recorded a higher leak pressure. Due to author-defined parameters such as cost-effectiveness, they deduce that i-gel® ‘must be more frequently used’.

Link to abstract.

Beringer R, Kelly F, Cook T, Nolan J, Hardy R, Simpson T, White M. Anaesthesia 2012; 66(12): 1121-1126

120 children up to 13 years of age were studied using the paediatric i-gel® during general anaesthesia to assess efficacy and usability. Insertion success and number of attempts, ventilation, leak pressure and fibreoptic view were all recorded. Airway manipulations and complications were also noted. In 94% of children the i-gel® was inserted and a clear airway maintained without complication.

Link to abstract.