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

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.