Comparison of NoSAS score with STOP-Bang and Berlin scores in predicting difficult airway.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY BMC Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1186/s12871-025-02926-1
Onurcan Balık, Eyyüp Sabri Özden, Mustafa Soner Özcan, Filiz Alkaya Solmaz, Pakize Kırdemir
{"title":"Comparison of NoSAS score with STOP-Bang and Berlin scores in predicting difficult airway.","authors":"Onurcan Balık, Eyyüp Sabri Özden, Mustafa Soner Özcan, Filiz Alkaya Solmaz, Pakize Kırdemir","doi":"10.1186/s12871-025-02926-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the NoSAS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin scoring systems, which are utilized to predict obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), in forecasting difficult airway management. Additionally, the study sought to determine which of these scoring systems is the most practical and effective for this purpose.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the ethics committee approval, preoperative NoSAS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin scores were calculated for 420 patients aged 18 years and older who were scheduled for tracheal intubation. Mask ventilation and intubation were performed by research assistant with a minimum of two years of experience. Detailed examinations and recordings were conducted, including demographic data, neck circumference, OSAS diagnosis, history of difficult intubation, comorbidities, ASA classification, Mallampati classification, and Cormack-Lehane grade. Subsequently, the predictive efficacy of these three scoring systems for difficult mask ventilation and difficult intubation was compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our study, 83 patients (19.8%) were classified as having difficult mask ventilation, and 101 patients (24.0%) were classified as having difficult intubation. The NoSAS score demonstrated a higher predictive power compared to the other scoring systems for difficult mask ventilation and difficult intubation. The cut-off value for the NoSAS score was determined to be 6.5 for predicting difficult mask ventilation and 7.5 for predicting difficult intubation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The routine implementation of the NoSAS score, an easy-to-use, rapid and objective tool primarily developed for OSAS screening, is likely to be effective in preoperatively identifying difficult airways in patients undergoing general anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"46"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11776134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-02926-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the NoSAS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin scoring systems, which are utilized to predict obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), in forecasting difficult airway management. Additionally, the study sought to determine which of these scoring systems is the most practical and effective for this purpose.

Methods: Following the ethics committee approval, preoperative NoSAS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin scores were calculated for 420 patients aged 18 years and older who were scheduled for tracheal intubation. Mask ventilation and intubation were performed by research assistant with a minimum of two years of experience. Detailed examinations and recordings were conducted, including demographic data, neck circumference, OSAS diagnosis, history of difficult intubation, comorbidities, ASA classification, Mallampati classification, and Cormack-Lehane grade. Subsequently, the predictive efficacy of these three scoring systems for difficult mask ventilation and difficult intubation was compared.

Results: In our study, 83 patients (19.8%) were classified as having difficult mask ventilation, and 101 patients (24.0%) were classified as having difficult intubation. The NoSAS score demonstrated a higher predictive power compared to the other scoring systems for difficult mask ventilation and difficult intubation. The cut-off value for the NoSAS score was determined to be 6.5 for predicting difficult mask ventilation and 7.5 for predicting difficult intubation.

Conclusion: The routine implementation of the NoSAS score, an easy-to-use, rapid and objective tool primarily developed for OSAS screening, is likely to be effective in preoperatively identifying difficult airways in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling the impact of frailty on postoperative delirium in elderly surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Correlation between monocyte and length of in-hospital stay in patients with allergic rhinitis: data from the MIMIC-IV database. Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for gastroscopy in patients with obesity: a randomised clinical controlled trial using different weight-based dosing scales. Post-pericardiectomy ECMO for constrictive pericarditis: a case series and literature review. Effect of the new non-inflatable laryngeal mask GMA-Tulip on airway management for lateral total hip arthroplasty in geriatric patients: a randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1