i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

A comparison of the i-gel® and classic LMA® insertion in manikins by experienced and novice physicians

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



Comments are closed