i-gel O2 Resus Pack instruction poster now available

We now have available an i-gel 02 Resus Pack instruction poster which outlines step-by-step how to prepare, insert and secure the i-gel 02.
 

Download the poster from the i-gel O2 Resus Pack product page under the download tab.

We now have available an i-gel 02 Resus Pack instruction poster which outlines the step-by-step walkthrough of how to prepare, insert and secure the i-gel 02 featuring a short description and scenario images.

To find out more about this range visit the product page or the dedicated i-gel website.

Original Article

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel^® vs laryngeal mask airway in adults^†

1. J. de Montblanc Service d'Anesthésie – Réanimation Chirurgicale^*,
2. L. Ruscio Service d'Anesthésie – Réanimation Chirurgicale,
3. J. X. Mazoit Service d'Anesthésie – Réanimation Chirurgicale and
4. D. Benhamou Service d'Anesthésie – Réanimation Chirurgicale

Issue

Anaesthesia

Summary

We systematically reviewed 31 adult randomised clinical trials of the i-gel^® vs laryngeal mask airway. The mean (95% CI) leak pressure difference and relative risk (95% CI) of insertion on the first attempt were similar: 0.40 (−1.23 to 2.02) cmH₂O and 0.98 (0.95–1.01), respectively. The mean (95% CI) insertion time and the relative risk (95% CI) of sore throat were less with the i-gel: by 1.46 (0.33–2.60) s, p = 0.01, and 0.59 (0.38–0.90), p = 0.02, respectively. The relative risk of poor fibreoptic view through the i-gel was 0.29 (0.16–0.54), p < 0.0001. All outcomes displayed substantial heterogeneity, I² ≥ 75%. Subgroup analyses did not decrease heterogeneity, but suggested that insertion of the i-gel was faster than for first-generation laryngeal mask airways and that the i-gel leak pressure was higher than first generation, but lower than second-generation, laryngeal mask airways. A less frequent sore throat was the main clinical advantage of the i-gel.