Literature DB >> 33494705

The evaluation of maximum condyle-tragus distance can predict difficult airway management without exposing upper respiratory tract; a prospective observational study.

Hao Wu1, Dandan Hu2, Xu Chen1, Xuebing Zhang1, Min Xia1, Xiaoqing Chai1, Sheng Wang1, Wei Zhang3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Routine preoperative methods to assess airway such as the interincisor distance (IID), Mallampati classification, and upper lip bite test (ULBT) have a certain risk of upper respiratory tract exposure and virus spread. Condyle-tragus maximal distance(C-TMD) can be used to assess the airway, and does not require the patient to expose the upper respiratory tract, but its value in predicting difficult laryngoscopy compared to other indicators (Mallampati classification, IID, and ULBT) remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to observe the value of C-TMD to predict difficult laryngoscopy and the influence on intubation time and intubation attempts, and provide a new idea for preoperative airway assessment during epidemic.
METHODS: Adult patients undergoing general anesthesia and tracheal intubation were enrolled. IID, Mallampati classification, ULBT, and C-TMD of each patient were evaluated before the initiation of anesthesia. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes were difficult laryngoscopy defined as the Cormack-Lehane Level > grade 2 and the number of intubation attempts.
RESULTS: Three hundred four patients were successfully enrolled and completed the study, 39 patients were identified as difficult laryngoscopy. The intubation time was shorter with the C-TMD>1 finger group 46.8 ± 7.3 s, compared with the C-TMD<1 finger group 50.8 ± 8.6 s (p<0.01). First attempt success rate was higher in the C-TMD>1 finger group 98.9% than in the C-TMD<1 finger group 87.1% (P<0.01). The correlation between the C-TMD and Cormack-Lehane Level was 0.317 (Spearman correlation coefficient, P<0.001), and the area under the ROC curve was 0.699 (P<0.01). The C-TMD < 1 finger width was the most consistent with difficult laryngoscopy (κ = 0.485;95%CI:0.286-0.612) and its OR value was 10.09 (95%CI: 4.19-24.28), sensitivity was 0.469 (95%CI: 0.325-0.617), specificity was 0.929 (95%CI: 0.877-0.964), positive predictive value was 0.676 (95%CI: 0.484-0.745), negative predictive value was 0.847 (95%CI: 0.825-0.865).
CONCLUSION: Compared with the IID, Mallampati classification and ULBT, C-TMD has higher value in predicting difficult laryngoscopy and does not require the exposure of upper respiratory tract. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on October 21, 2019 in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1900026775 ).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Airway management; COVID-19 epidemic; Difficult laryngoscopy

Year:  2021        PMID: 33494705      PMCID: PMC7829489          DOI: 10.1186/s12871-021-01253-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol        ISSN: 1471-2253            Impact factor:   2.217


  17 in total

1.  Preoperative airway assessment: predictive value of a multivariate risk index.

Authors:  A R el-Ganzouri; R J McCarthy; K J Tuman; E N Tanck; A D Ivankovich
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 5.108

2.  Can Mandibular Condylar Mobility Sonography Measurements Predict Difficult Laryngoscopy?

Authors:  Weidong Yao; Yumei Zhou; Bin Wang; Tao Yu; Zhongbing Shen; Hao Wu; Xiaoju Jin; Yuanhai Li
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 5.108

3.  Prediction of difficult tracheal intubation: time for a paradigm change.

Authors:  Olivier Langeron; Philippe Cuvillon; Cristina Ibanez-Esteve; François Lenfant; Bruno Riou; Yannick Le Manach
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 7.892

4.  Evaluation of Mandibular Movement Functions Using Instrumental Ultrasound System.

Authors:  Anna Sójka; Juliusz Huber; Elżbieta Kaczmarek; Wiesław Hędzelek
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Bedside tests for predicting difficult airways: an abridged Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic review.

Authors:  D Roth; N L Pace; A Lee; K Hovhannisyan; A M Warenits; J Arrich; H Herkner
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 6.955

6.  Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics.

Authors:  R S Cormack; J Lehane
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 6.955

7.  Can an airway assessment score predict difficulty at intubation in the emergency department?

Authors:  M J Reed; M J G Dunn; D W McKeown
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.740

8.  Patient and surgery factors associated with the incidence of failed and difficult intubation.

Authors:  R Schnittker; S D Marshall; J Berecki-Gisolf
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 6.955

9.  Formulation of a multivariate predictive model for difficult intubation: A double blinded prospective study.

Authors:  Anoop Kanwal Chhina; Richa Jain; Parshotam Lal Gautam; Jony Garg; Nidhi Singh; Anju Grewal
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

10.  Consensus guidelines for managing the airway in patients with COVID-19: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society, the Association of Anaesthetists the Intensive Care Society, the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal College of Anaesthetists.

Authors:  T M Cook; K El-Boghdadly; B McGuire; A F McNarry; A Patel; A Higgs
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 6.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.