Skip Navigation



BJA Advance Access published online on January 29, 2008
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/aem396
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/3/415    most recent
aem396v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow E-letters: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gibbison, B.
Right arrow Articles by Seller, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gibbison, B.
Right arrow Articles by Seller, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Case series: protection from aspiration and failure of protection from aspiration with the i-gel airway{dagger}

B. Gibbison*, T. M. Cook and C. Seller

Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK

* Corresponding author. E-mail: ben{at}gibbison.com

We present three patients of regurgitation while using the i-gel supraglottic airway in 280 patients. In two patients, the i-gel completely protected the airway from aspiration. In one patient, it did not provide complete protection. The i-gel has features designed to separate the airway and gastro-intestinal tracts and as such should offer some protection against aspiration. However, the efficacy of these features has not been confirmed, and further study is required to determine the safety profile of the device.

Keywords: airway, complications; aspiration, equipment; airway

{dagger} Declaration of interest. Intersurgical has provided i-gels to our department free of charge for evaluation. Dr Cook has received free equipment for evaluation and has been paid by Intavent-Orthofix and the LMA company (competitors of Intersurgical) for lecturing.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
V. Uppal, S. Gangaiah, G. Fletcher, and J. Kinsella
Randomized crossover comparison between the i-gel and the LMA-Unique in anaesthetized, paralysed adults
Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2009; 103(6): 882 - 885.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
W. Schmidbauer, S. Bercker, T. Volk, G. Bogusch, G. Mager, and T. Kerner
Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device I-GelTM in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways ClassicTM and ProSealTM using a cadaver model
Br. J. Anaesth., January 1, 2009; 102(1): 135 - 139.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

E-letters:

Read all E-letters

I-gel and airway protection: Is it dependant on the dead space in the supraglottic area?
Andrew Roth, et al.
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 15 Mar 2008 [Full text]

Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.