三级保健中心成人患者身高与甲状腺距离之比、颈围与甲状腺距离之比及甲状腺高度评价插管困难的比较研究。

Sukhdev Rao, Naveen Paliwal, Sunil Saharan, Pooja Bihani, Rishabh Jaju, U D Sharma, Monish Sharma
{"title":"三级保健中心成人患者身高与甲状腺距离之比、颈围与甲状腺距离之比及甲状腺高度评价插管困难的比较研究。","authors":"Sukhdev Rao,&nbsp;Naveen Paliwal,&nbsp;Sunil Saharan,&nbsp;Pooja Bihani,&nbsp;Rishabh Jaju,&nbsp;U D Sharma,&nbsp;Monish Sharma","doi":"10.5152/TJAR.2022.22077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patients' airway assessment is one of the foremost responsibility of every anaesthesiologist. Several preoperative predictive methods have been studied by various authors to find the best difficult airway predictor. We conducted this study to compare three methods to predict difficulty of laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation viz Ratio of patient Height to Thyro-Mental Distance (RHTMD), Ratio of Neck Circumference to Thyro-Mental Distance (RNCTMD) and Thyro-Mental Height (TMHT) in adult patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational study was conducted on 330 adult patients, ASA staus I and II, aged 18-60 years of either sex, weighing 50-80 kg scheduled for elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. Patient's height, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI) was recorded and thyromental distance, neck circumference, TMHT were measured preoperatively. Laryngoscopic view was graded according to Cormack- Lehane (CL) Grade. Predictive indices and optimal cut-off values were calculated using ROC curve analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Difficulty in laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation was encountered in 12.42% patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and Area Under Curve (AUC) for TMHT were 100%, 95.2%, 75.54%, 100%, 0.982; for RHTMD were 75.6%, 72.7%, 28.18%, 95.45%, 0.758 and for RNCTMD were 82.9%, 65.4%, 25.37%, 96.42%, 0.779 respectively. There was no statistically significant difference to predict difficulty of laryngoscopic intubation between any of them (P < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among these 3 parameters, TMHT was found to be the best preoperative method to predict difficult laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation with highest predictive indices and AUC. The RNCTMD was found to be more sensitive and useful method than RHTMD to predict difficulty of laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":"51 2","pages":"90-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10210610/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Study to Evaluate Difficult Intubation Using Ratio of Patient Height to Thyromental Distance, Ratio of Neck Circumference to Thyromental Distance and Thyromental Height in Adult Patients in Tertiary Care Centre.\",\"authors\":\"Sukhdev Rao,&nbsp;Naveen Paliwal,&nbsp;Sunil Saharan,&nbsp;Pooja Bihani,&nbsp;Rishabh Jaju,&nbsp;U D Sharma,&nbsp;Monish Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/TJAR.2022.22077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patients' airway assessment is one of the foremost responsibility of every anaesthesiologist. Several preoperative predictive methods have been studied by various authors to find the best difficult airway predictor. We conducted this study to compare three methods to predict difficulty of laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation viz Ratio of patient Height to Thyro-Mental Distance (RHTMD), Ratio of Neck Circumference to Thyro-Mental Distance (RNCTMD) and Thyro-Mental Height (TMHT) in adult patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational study was conducted on 330 adult patients, ASA staus I and II, aged 18-60 years of either sex, weighing 50-80 kg scheduled for elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. Patient's height, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI) was recorded and thyromental distance, neck circumference, TMHT were measured preoperatively. Laryngoscopic view was graded according to Cormack- Lehane (CL) Grade. Predictive indices and optimal cut-off values were calculated using ROC curve analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Difficulty in laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation was encountered in 12.42% patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and Area Under Curve (AUC) for TMHT were 100%, 95.2%, 75.54%, 100%, 0.982; for RHTMD were 75.6%, 72.7%, 28.18%, 95.45%, 0.758 and for RNCTMD were 82.9%, 65.4%, 25.37%, 96.42%, 0.779 respectively. There was no statistically significant difference to predict difficulty of laryngoscopic intubation between any of them (P < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among these 3 parameters, TMHT was found to be the best preoperative method to predict difficult laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation with highest predictive indices and AUC. The RNCTMD was found to be more sensitive and useful method than RHTMD to predict difficulty of laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23353,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation\",\"volume\":\"51 2\",\"pages\":\"90-96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10210610/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2022.22077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2022.22077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:患者气道评估是每位麻醉师的首要职责之一。各种作者研究了几种术前预测方法,以找到最佳的困难气道预测器。我们进行了这项研究,比较了三种预测喉镜气管插管困难的方法,即患者身高与甲状腺距离之比(RHTMD)、颈围与甲状腺距离之比(RNCTMD)和甲状腺精神高度(TMHT)。方法:本前瞻性观察研究纳入330例ASA状态为I和II的成人患者,年龄18-60岁,男女均可,体重50-80 kg,计划在全身麻醉下择期手术。术前记录患者身高、体重、体质指数(BMI),测量甲状腺距离、颈围、TMHT。根据Cormack- Lehane (CL)分级进行喉镜检查。采用ROC曲线分析计算预测指标及最佳临界值。结果:12.42%的患者出现喉镜下气管插管困难。TMHT的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和曲线下面积(AUC)分别为100%、95.2%、75.54%、100%、0.982;RHTMD患病率分别为75.6%、72.7%、28.18%、95.45%、0.758,RNCTMD患病率分别为82.9%、65.4%、25.37%、96.42%、0.779。两者预测喉镜插管困难程度的差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:在这3个参数中,TMHT是术前预测困难喉镜气管插管的最佳方法,预测指标和AUC最高。RNCTMD较RHTMD预测喉镜下气管插管困难更为敏感和有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
A Comparative Study to Evaluate Difficult Intubation Using Ratio of Patient Height to Thyromental Distance, Ratio of Neck Circumference to Thyromental Distance and Thyromental Height in Adult Patients in Tertiary Care Centre.

Objective: Patients' airway assessment is one of the foremost responsibility of every anaesthesiologist. Several preoperative predictive methods have been studied by various authors to find the best difficult airway predictor. We conducted this study to compare three methods to predict difficulty of laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation viz Ratio of patient Height to Thyro-Mental Distance (RHTMD), Ratio of Neck Circumference to Thyro-Mental Distance (RNCTMD) and Thyro-Mental Height (TMHT) in adult patients.

Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted on 330 adult patients, ASA staus I and II, aged 18-60 years of either sex, weighing 50-80 kg scheduled for elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. Patient's height, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI) was recorded and thyromental distance, neck circumference, TMHT were measured preoperatively. Laryngoscopic view was graded according to Cormack- Lehane (CL) Grade. Predictive indices and optimal cut-off values were calculated using ROC curve analysis.

Results: Difficulty in laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation was encountered in 12.42% patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and Area Under Curve (AUC) for TMHT were 100%, 95.2%, 75.54%, 100%, 0.982; for RHTMD were 75.6%, 72.7%, 28.18%, 95.45%, 0.758 and for RNCTMD were 82.9%, 65.4%, 25.37%, 96.42%, 0.779 respectively. There was no statistically significant difference to predict difficulty of laryngoscopic intubation between any of them (P < .05).

Conclusions: Among these 3 parameters, TMHT was found to be the best preoperative method to predict difficult laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation with highest predictive indices and AUC. The RNCTMD was found to be more sensitive and useful method than RHTMD to predict difficulty of laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Comparative Study of Magnesium Sulfate, Lignocaine, and Propofol for Attenuating Hemodynamic Response During Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Under General Anaesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Anaesthesia Management of A Patient with Airway Obstruction Caused by Prosthetic Vascular Graft Invasion into the Tracheal Lumen. Bispectral Index Guidance Reduced Target Plasma Propofol Concentration During ERCP in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis. Dexmedetomidine Versus Fentanyl in Intraoperative Neuromuscular Monitoring Using A Propofol-based Total Intravenous Anaesthesia Regimen in Spine Surgeries. Implementation of ERAS Protocols: In Theory and Practice.
×
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