Literature DB >> 10522589

Assessment of laryngeal view: percentage of glottic opening score vs Cormack and Lehane grading.

E A Ochroch1, J E Hollander, S Kush, F S Shofer, R M Levitan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of two methods that categorize laryngeal view during direct laryngoscopy, the Cormack-Lehane grading system and a new scale, the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scale.
METHODS: Seven anesthesiologists from the University of Pennsylvania Health System viewed 25 identical pairs of slides of laryngeal views during direct laryngoscopy. Each anesthesiologist rated the 50 slides for both Cormack-Lehane grades and POGO scores. The latter CL replaces grades 1 and 2 C-L grades with a percentage of glottic opening: the POGO score. Inter and intra-physician reliability for the Cormack-Lehane grades were determined using the kappa statistic analysis, comparison of POGO scores was performed using the intraclass correlation coefficients (rI).
RESULTS: The POGO score had a better inter and intra-physician reliability than the Cormack-Lehane grading system. The intra-physician reliability for the POGO score was very good with an average interclass rI value of 0.88. The inter-physician score was good with a rI of 0.73. The Cormack-Lehane grading system had excellent intra-physician concordance (average kappa = 0.83.) but the inter-physician reliability was poor (kappa = 0.16.)
CONCLUSION: The Cormack-Lehane grading system has very poor inter-physician reliability. The lack of inter-physician reliability with Cormack-Lehane grading calls into question the results of previous studies in which different laryngoscopists used this method to assess laryngeal view. The POGO score appears to have good intra and inter-rater reliability. It has several theoretical advantages and may prove to be more useful for research studies in direct laryngoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10522589     DOI: 10.1007/BF03013137

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Anaesth        ISSN: 0832-610X            Impact factor:   5.063


  42 in total

1.  Pentax-AWS (Airway Scope) and Airtraq: big difference between two similar devices.

Authors:  Akihiro Suzuki; Nobuko Abe; Tomoki Sasakawa; Takayuki Kunisawa; Osamu Takahata; Hiroshi Iwasaki
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2008-05-25       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  The Pentax-AWS is particularly suitable for facilitating intubation in edentulous geriatric patients.

Authors:  Kunihiko Yamamoto; Akihiro Suzuki; Yuki Toyama; Tomoki Sasakawa; Takayuki Kunisawa; Osamu Takahata; Hiroshi Iwasaki
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 2.078

3.  [Comparison of GlideScope® Cobalt and McGrath® Series 5 video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy in a simulated regurgitation/aspiration scenario].

Authors:  M Kriege; T Piepho; H Buggenhagen; R R Noppens
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2015-01-11       Impact factor: 0.840

4.  Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy using spirometry: a pilot study.

Authors:  Serkan Dogru; Tugba Karaman; Aynur Sahin; Hakan Tapar; Serkan Karaman; Semih Arici; Mustafa Suren; Ziya Kaya; Battal Tahsin Somuk
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-11-19       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  Cross-over study of novice intubators performing endotracheal intubation in an upright versus supine position.

Authors:  Joseph S Turner; Timothy J Ellender; Enola R Okonkwo; Tyler M Stepsis; Andrew C Stevens; Christopher S Eddy; Erik G Sembroski; Anthony J Perkins; Dylan D Cooper
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 3.397

6.  Variables associated with successful intubation attempts using video laryngoscopy: a preliminary report in a helicopter emergency medical service.

Authors:  Jestin N Carlson; Jorge Quintero; Francis X Guyette; Clifton W Callaway; James J Menegazzi
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 3.077

7.  Effect of jaw thrust and cricoid pressure maneuvers on glottic visualization during GlideScope videolaryngoscopy.

Authors:  David M Corda; Kevin T Riutort; Alex J Leone; Mueez K Qureshi; Michael G Heckman; Sorin J Brull
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 2.078

8.  Intubation Biomechanics: Laryngoscope Force and Cervical Spine Motion during Intubation in Cadavers-Cadavers versus Patients, the Effect of Repeated Intubations, and the Effect of Type II Odontoid Fracture on C1-C2 Motion.

Authors:  Bradley J Hindman; Robert P From; Ricardo B Fontes; Vincent C Traynelis; Michael M Todd; M Bridget Zimmerman; Christian M Puttlitz; Brandon G Santoni
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  Intubation biomechanics: laryngoscope force and cervical spine motion during intubation with Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes.

Authors:  Bradley J Hindman; Brandon G Santoni; Christian M Puttlitz; Robert P From; Michael M Todd
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  Inexpensive video-laryngoscopy guided intubation using a personal computer: initial experience of a novel technique.

Authors:  John George Karippacheril; Goneppanavar Umesh; Venkateswaran Ramkumar
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 2.502

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.