Access to the text (HTML) Access to the text (HTML)
PDF Access to the PDF text

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription.
  • If you are a subscriber, please sign in 'My Account' at the top right of the screen.

  • If you want to subscribe to this journal, see our rates


Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine
Sous presse. Epreuves corrigées par l'auteur. Disponible en ligne depuis le dimanche 11 novembre 2018
Doi : 10.1016/j.accpm.2018.08.003
Choosing appropriate size of I-Gel® for initial success insertion: a prospective comparative study

Gilles Guerrier a, , Christine Agostini a, Marion Antona a, Fiorella Sponzini a, Anne Paoletti b, Isabelle Martin b, Jean-Michel Ekherian c, Christophe Baillard a
a Anaesthetic and intensive care department, hôpital Cochin, Paris Descartes university, 75014 Paris, France 
b Clinique Sainte-Geneviève, 75014 Paris, France 
c Hôpital de l’Ouest Parisien, 78190 Trappes, France 

Corresponding author: Hôpital Cochin, 27, rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques 75014 Paris, France.Hôpital Cochin27, rue du Faubourg-Saint-JacquesParis75014France

The optimal size of the I-Gel® remains unclear since the manufacturer's weight-based formula (size 3 for weight < 50 kg, size 4 for weight 50–90 kg, and size 5 for weight > 90 kg) for the laryngeal mask airway I-Gel® is not evidence-based. We hypothesised that sex may also guide the choice of I-Gel® size.


Insertion success rates of the I-Gel® chosen according to the weight-based formula were prospectively recorded and compared with those of a patients’ cohort ventilated with an I-Gel® chosen according to the sex-based formula recorded. Two periods of 18 months were randomised in three independent hospitals in France to study each choice strategy. Patients requiring I-Gel® size change were compared with those who where successfully ventilated with the initially chosen device. Complications linked to the I-Gel® and factors for changing the size of the I-Gel® were also recorded and analysed.


Data from 900 patients were prospectively collected in the three participating centres. The overall initial ventilation was inadequate in 80 cases, including 7% (n  = 31) in the weight-based group and 3% (n  = 13) in the sex-based group (P  = 0.01). In the weight-based group, changing size of I-Gel® was successful in 28 (90%) cases. In the sex-based group, changing size of I-Gel® was useful in 1 case only. Endotracheal tube insertion was necessary in 15 cases despite changing I-Gel® size, including 3 cases in the weight-based group and 12 cases in the sex-based group. Ease of insertion and postoperative pharyngo-laryngeal problems were similar between groups with or without changing size of I-Gel®.


Adequate ventilation is achieved most of the time using size selection for the I-Gel® laryngeal mask airway according to the manufacturer's weight-based formula. However, our results suggest that the sex-based formula in healthy, anaesthetised, adult patients may also be appropriate for I-Gel® size choice.

The full text of this article is available in PDF format.

© 2018  Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
EM-CONSULTE.COM is registrered at the CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.
As per the Law relating to information storage and personal integrity, you have the right to oppose (art 26 of that law), access (art 34 of that law) and rectify (art 36 of that law) your personal data. You may thus request that your data, should it be inaccurate, incomplete, unclear, outdated, not be used or stored, be corrected, clarified, updated or deleted.
Personal information regarding our website's visitors, including their identity, is confidential.
The owners of this website hereby guarantee to respect the legal confidentiality conditions, applicable in France, and not to disclose this data to third parties.
Article Outline