改良Mallampati试验与甲状腺高度试验在术前气道评估中的比较:一项前瞻性观察研究

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Indian Anaesthetists Forum Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_112_20
Ketan K Kataria, S. Chhatrapati, S. Bloria, Nidhi Singh, S. Paul, A. Luthra, Samira Vithani, S. Omar, VKrishna Narayanan Nayanar
{"title":"改良Mallampati试验与甲状腺高度试验在术前气道评估中的比较:一项前瞻性观察研究","authors":"Ketan K Kataria, S. Chhatrapati, S. Bloria, Nidhi Singh, S. Paul, A. Luthra, Samira Vithani, S. Omar, VKrishna Narayanan Nayanar","doi":"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_112_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Prevision of a potentially difficult airway in the preoperative period is imperative. The available tools are evaluation of mouth opening, Mallampati test; atlanto-occipital extension; hyomental, thyromental, and sternomental distances; and upper lip bite test; thyromental height test (TMHT) is a new indicator. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of preoperative anaesthetic airway evaluation methods of TMHT and Modified mallampati test (MMT) to predict the difficulty in intubation. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was aimed to compare the effectiveness of preoperative anesthetic airway evaluation methods of TMHT and modified Mallampati test (MMT) to predict the difficulty in intubation. A total of 150 subjects were included in this study. MMT and TMHT were compared, and sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy were calculated. Results: On comparison, we found TMHT to be more sensitive (93.33%) than MMT (77.78%); both tests have high specificity (TMHT 91.43%; MMT 81.90%). Positive predictive value was 82.35% for TMHT and 64.81% for MMT. Similarly, negative predictive value was 96.97% for TMHT and 89.58% for MMT. Accuracy was 92.00% for TMHT and 80.66% for MMT. Conclusions: TMHT can predict difficult intubation better than MMT (high positive predictive value). However, both TMHT and MMT predict easy intubations effectively, their negative predictive values being high.","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of modified Mallampati test and thyromental height test for preoperative airway assessment: A prospective observational study\",\"authors\":\"Ketan K Kataria, S. Chhatrapati, S. Bloria, Nidhi Singh, S. Paul, A. Luthra, Samira Vithani, S. Omar, VKrishna Narayanan Nayanar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_112_20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Prevision of a potentially difficult airway in the preoperative period is imperative. The available tools are evaluation of mouth opening, Mallampati test; atlanto-occipital extension; hyomental, thyromental, and sternomental distances; and upper lip bite test; thyromental height test (TMHT) is a new indicator. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of preoperative anaesthetic airway evaluation methods of TMHT and Modified mallampati test (MMT) to predict the difficulty in intubation. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was aimed to compare the effectiveness of preoperative anesthetic airway evaluation methods of TMHT and modified Mallampati test (MMT) to predict the difficulty in intubation. A total of 150 subjects were included in this study. MMT and TMHT were compared, and sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy were calculated. Results: On comparison, we found TMHT to be more sensitive (93.33%) than MMT (77.78%); both tests have high specificity (TMHT 91.43%; MMT 81.90%). Positive predictive value was 82.35% for TMHT and 64.81% for MMT. Similarly, negative predictive value was 96.97% for TMHT and 89.58% for MMT. Accuracy was 92.00% for TMHT and 80.66% for MMT. Conclusions: TMHT can predict difficult intubation better than MMT (high positive predictive value). However, both TMHT and MMT predict easy intubations effectively, their negative predictive values being high.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_112_20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_112_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:术前预防潜在困难的气道是当务之急。可用的工具有开口评估、Mallampati测试;寰枕伸展;舌骨、甲状腺和胸骨网膜距离;上唇咬合试验;甲状腺高度测试(TMHT)是一项新的指标。目的:比较TMHT和改良mallampati试验(MMT)术前麻醉气道评估方法预测插管困难的有效性。材料和方法:一项前瞻性观察性研究旨在比较TMHT和改良Mallampati试验(MMT)术前麻醉气道评估方法预测插管困难的有效性。本研究共纳入150名受试者。比较MMT和TMHT,并计算其敏感性、特异性、预测值和准确性。结果:TMHT的敏感性(93.33%)高于MMT(77.78%);两种检测均具有较高的特异性(TMHT 91.43%,MMT 81.90%),TMHT阳性预测值为82.35%,MMT阳性预测值64.81%。同样,TMHT和MMT的阴性预测值分别为96.97%和89.58%。TMHT和MMT的准确度分别为92.00%和80.66%。结论:TMHT比MMT更能预测插管困难(阳性预测值高)。然而,TMHT和MMT都能有效地预测容易插管,其阴性预测值很高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of modified Mallampati test and thyromental height test for preoperative airway assessment: A prospective observational study
Background: Prevision of a potentially difficult airway in the preoperative period is imperative. The available tools are evaluation of mouth opening, Mallampati test; atlanto-occipital extension; hyomental, thyromental, and sternomental distances; and upper lip bite test; thyromental height test (TMHT) is a new indicator. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of preoperative anaesthetic airway evaluation methods of TMHT and Modified mallampati test (MMT) to predict the difficulty in intubation. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was aimed to compare the effectiveness of preoperative anesthetic airway evaluation methods of TMHT and modified Mallampati test (MMT) to predict the difficulty in intubation. A total of 150 subjects were included in this study. MMT and TMHT were compared, and sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy were calculated. Results: On comparison, we found TMHT to be more sensitive (93.33%) than MMT (77.78%); both tests have high specificity (TMHT 91.43%; MMT 81.90%). Positive predictive value was 82.35% for TMHT and 64.81% for MMT. Similarly, negative predictive value was 96.97% for TMHT and 89.58% for MMT. Accuracy was 92.00% for TMHT and 80.66% for MMT. Conclusions: TMHT can predict difficult intubation better than MMT (high positive predictive value). However, both TMHT and MMT predict easy intubations effectively, their negative predictive values being high.
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cardiovascular complications in coronavirus disease-2019 patients Refractory hypokalemia in intensive care unit: Efforts in vain Evaluation of effect of dexamethasone and bicarbonate as adjuvants to intracuff lignocaine on endotracheal tube tolerance during emergence and incidence of postoperative cough and sore throat Is it popliteal artery? Is it popliteal vein? No it is persistent sciatic vein Mortality predictors during the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentric retrospective analysis from tertiary care centers of Western India
×
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