|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 3 | Page : 390-395
Comparison of thyromental height test with ratio of height to thyromental distance, thyromental distance, and modified Mallampati test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy: A prospective study
Pratibha Panjiar, Anjali Kochhar, Kharat M Bhat, Mudassir A Bhat
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, New Delhi, India
|Date of Web Publication||3-Sep-2019|
Dr. Pratibha Panjiar
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, New Delhi
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background and Aims: Preoperative airway assessment to predict patients with difficult laryngoscopy is always crucial for anesthesiologists. Several predictive tests have been studied by various authors in quest of finding the best airway predictor. Recently, a new airway predictor, thyromental height test (TMHT) has been reported to have good predictive value in assessing difficult airway. We conducted this study with primary aim to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of TMHT and to compare it with other established airway predictors, such as ratio of height to thyromental distance (RHTMD), thyromental distance (TMD), and modified Mallampati test (MMT) for predicting difficult laryngoscopy.
Material and Methods: This prospective, observational study was conducted in 550 patients of either sex aged >18 years scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. The patients' airway was assessed preoperatively by two anesthetists. Standard anesthetic protocol was followed in all the patients. The laryngoscopic view was graded according to Cormack–Lehane scale. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to calculate the ideal cut off values for TMHT and RHTMD. Standard formulae were used to calculate validity indexes.
Results: The incidence of difficult laryngoscopy was 10%. The cut-off value for TMHT and RHTMD were 5.1 cm and 19.5, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of TMHT were 78.18%, 93.94%, 58.90%, and 97.48%, respectively. The highest sensitivity, PPV, and NPV were observed with TMHT as compared with RHTMD, TMD, and MMT (P < 0.0001).
Conclusions: TMHT is the best predictive test with highest accuracy and odds ratio for predicting difficult airway out of all predictive tests evaluated.
Keywords: Airway, difficult laryngoscopy, RHTMD, thyromental height test
|How to cite this article:|
Panjiar P, Kochhar A, Bhat KM, Bhat MA. Comparison of thyromental height test with ratio of height to thyromental distance, thyromental distance, and modified Mallampati test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy: A prospective study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2019;35:390-5
|How to cite this URL:|
Panjiar P, Kochhar A, Bhat KM, Bhat MA. Comparison of thyromental height test with ratio of height to thyromental distance, thyromental distance, and modified Mallampati test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy: A prospective study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol [serial online] 2019 [cited 2021 May 13];35:390-5. Available from: https://www.joacp.org/text.asp?2019/35/3/390/265915
| Introduction|| |
The knowledge and related skills pertaining to airway management are of paramount importance to anesthesiologists. The incidence of difficult laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation is recorded in 1.5%–20% of patients.,, Failure in managing the airway may result in significant morbidity and mortality. It is reported that of all the anesthetic deaths, 30%–40%, are attributed to inability to manage difficult airway. Therefore, preoperative assessment of patients' airway to predict difficult laryngoscopy and intubation accurately is very crucial.
Several preoperative airway assessment tests, such as modified Mallampati test (MMT), thyromental distance (TMD), sternomental distance (SMD), and ratio of height to thyromental Distance (RHTMD) have been used singly or in various combinations for predicting difficult airway., However, no single test or combination of tests has been validated as the best predictor of difficult airway.
Recently, Etezadi et al. showed that the new airway predictor thyromental height test (TMHT) had a better predictive value than MMT, TMD, and SMD. RHTMD has variably been shown to be a better predictor of difficult airway as compared with MMT, TMD, and SMD., However, no published study has quantified sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of TMHT versus RHTMD for evaluating patients' airway for difficult laryngoscopy.
So, we conducted this prospective study with primary aim to evaluate validity indexes (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV), relative risk, accuracy, odds ratio, and likelihood ratio of TMHT to predict occurrence of difficult laryngoscopy. The secondary aim of the study was to compare validity indexes of TMHT, RHTMD, TMD, and MMT to determine an airway predictor with the highest diagnostic accuracy for predicting difficult laryngoscopy.
| Material and Methods|| |
This prospective, single blinded, observational study was conducted at a university hospital and has been registered with Clinical Trials Registry of India. After obtaining institutional ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 550 patients of either sex, between 18 and 70 years of age belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II, scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation were recruited for this study. Patients with airway malformation, neck burns contracture, midline neck swelling, and edentulous, and those who require awake intubation were excluded from the study.
During preanesthesia check-up, the patient's age, sex, weight, height, ASA physical status, and body mass index were recorded. The airway assessments were done by two anesthesiologists, involved in the study to avoid interobserver variability. The following airway predictors were assessed:
TMHT: Height between the anterior border of the thyroid cartilage and the anterior border of the mentum, with head in neutral position keeping his/her mouth closed. The height will be measured with the help of depth gauze (Kristeel, 1503 DG 1) as shown in [Figure 1].
TMD: It is the distance from the bony point of the mentum to the thyroid notch, with head in full extension and mouth closed, measured with the help of a rigid ruler and classified as Class I if distance is >6.5 cm, Class II if distance is between 6 and 6.5 cm, and Class III if distance is <6 cm. TMD ≤6.5 cm was considered a difficult laryngoscopy.,
RHTMD: It was calculated as Height (in cm)/TMD.
MMT: Assessed by asking the patient to sit and open his or her mouth maximally and to protrude the tongue without phonation and classified as Class I if soft palate, fauces, uvula, anterior, and posterior tonsil pillars were visible; Class II in case soft palate, fauces, and uvula were visible; Class III if soft palate and base of uvula were visible; and Class IV when only hard palate was visible. MMT classes 3 and 4 were considered as predictors of difficult laryngoscopy.
All the patients were fasted for 8 h before surgery. In the operating room, after taking baseline vitals, general anesthesia was induced with fentanyl 2 μg/kg, propofol 2–3 mg/kg, and muscle relaxation was achieved by vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg. After 3 min, laryngoscopy was performed in sniffing position by an experienced anaesthesiologists (>5 year experience), not involved in airway assessment, using Macintosh #3, 4 blade. Sniffing position for intubation was achieved by placing a pillow (height: 8 cm) under the head. The patient trachea was then intubated and confirmed by bilateral auscultation over the lung fields and capnography. The laryngeal view was assessed by using modified Cormack and Lehane (C-L) grading system as follows: Class I: full glottic exposure, Class II: only posterior commissure of glottis, Class III: only epiglottis visible, and Class IV: epiglottis not visible. The C-L grades I and II was considered as easy laryngoscopy and C-L grades III and IV as difficult laryngoscopy.
Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A prospective power analysis showed that assuming an incidence of difficult laryngoscopy of 8%, 327 patients provide a power of >90% to detect the agreement between the C-L test and the predictors with a type I error of 3%. Considering power attenuation (as huge variation was expected in the number of patients with and without outcome), we increased sample size of about twofold (550). Patient data were presented as mean ± standard deviation or numbers (%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC) were used to calculate the optimal predictive cut-off point for TMHT and RHTMD. The preoperative airway assessment data and the findings during intubation were used to calculate the validity indexes. Fischer exact test was used for statistical comparison; 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated; and a P value of 0.05 (two-tailed) was defined as statistically significant.
| Results|| |
Five hundred and fifty patients were enrolled in the study. The demographic profiles of all patients are shown in [Table 1]. Fifty-five patients (10%) had C-L grading III or IV, which were managed either by using external laryngeal manoeuvre or with the help of bougie. There were no failed intubations.
According to the ROC curve, the cut-off values for TMHT and RHTMD were 5.1 cm and 19.5, respectively, as shown in [Figure 2] and [Figure 3]. The mean TMHT was 5.5 cm.
Comparison between C-L grades and preoperative predictors (TMHT, RHTMD, TMD, and MMT) are shown in [Table 2].
|Table 2: Comparison between C-L grades and four preoperative predictors (TMHT, RHTMD, TMD, and MMT)|
Click here to view
The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for TMHT were 78.18%, 93.94%, 58.90%, and 97.48%, respectively. Validity Indexes for TMHT, RHTMD, TMD, and MMT to predict the occurrence of difficult laryngoscopy, i.e., grade 3 or 4 according to the modified C-L classification are shown in [Table 3]. The highest sensitivity, PPV, NPV, accuracy, and odds ratio were observed with TMHT as compared with RHTMD, TMD, and MMT. The RHTMD was the least specific test (77.37%) as compared with other tests but had higher sensitivity (63.64%) and NPV (95.04%) compared with TMD and MMT.
|Table 3: Validity indexes for TMHT, RHTMD, TMD, and MMT to predict the occurrence of difficult laryngoscopy|
Click here to view
| Discussion|| |
Preoperative airway assessment is a routine anesthetic practice to predict difficult airway so that adequate planning could be made to secure airway. Difficulty in managing airway could be catastrophic and may result in significant morbidity and mortality. The incidence of difficult laryngoscopy and intubation reported by numerous studies were varies from 1.3% to 13% in patients undergoing general anesthesia.,,, This wide variation in incidence of difficult laryngoscopy and intubation can be attributed to various factors, such as ethnic differences among populations, head position (sniffing position), inclusion of external laryngeal manoeuvre, and the different criteria used to define difficult laryngoscopy and intubation. In our study, the incidence of difficult laryngoscopy was 10%, which is within the range as reported by previous studies and comparable to results obtained by Smita et al. (9.7%).
Recently, a new airway predictor TMHT was proposed by Etezadi et al. According to the study, shorter thyromental height is associated with difficult laryngoscopy. This can be related to the fact that in patients with anterior larynx, backward, upward, rightward pressure is used, which increases the thyromental height, to improve the laryngoscopic view. The area under the ROC curve was used to calculate the ideal cut-off point for TMHT (5.1 cm), with an AUC of 0.841 (95% CI, 0.780–0.903) for predicting difficult laryngoscopy. The cut-off value for TMHT in our study was very close to the value proposed by Etezadi et al. (5 cm). So, for the ease of calculation, we also performed the statistical analysis of TMHT by taking cut-off value (5 cm) as suggested by Etezadi et al. In this study, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for TMHT were found to be 78.18%, 93.94%, 58.90%, and 97.48%, respectively. These values were 82.6%, 99.31%, 90.47%, and 98.63%, respectively, in original study. Although the statistical values are different in our study from that of the original study, however, the conclusion that TMHT is the most accurate predictor as compared with other studied airway predictors was comparable.
Selvi et al. reassessed the TMHT in their study. According to the study, the suggested cut-off value for TMHT was 43.5 mm. This may be attributed to the racial differences among population. The study compared TMHT with ULBT, TMD, and MMT. Recently, the TMHT was studied in an Indian population. Validity indexes for TMHT found in our study were nearly comparable to other two studies performed on Indian population except PPV which was lower in our study., However, the low PPV has also been reported earlier in the study conducted by Selvi et al. (PPV 20.87% at TMH <43.52 mm, PPV 14.66% at TMH <50 mm). The low value of PPV can be explained by the fact that males have more prominent (few millimetre) thyroid cartilage, resulting in shorter TMH and thereby more false positives.
Safavi et al. concluded that the cut-off point for RHTMD for prediction of direct laryngoscopy is race dependent and recommend calculating cut-off point for each population separately. Hence, we used ROC curve to set the cut off for RHTMD. In our study, the cut-off point for RHTMD was 19.5, with an AUC of 0.622 (95% CI, 0.537–0.707) in contrast to 25 as reported by Schmitt et al. who introduced this test. This may be attributed to anthropometric differences among population. The sensitivity (63.64%) and NPV (95.04%) of RHTMD was higher in our study as compared with TMD and MMT. However, the PPV (23.81%) of RHTMD was lowest as compared with other tests, which correlates with the result obtained by previous studies.,,
In this study, the TMD showed poor sensitivity (20%) and PPV (29.95), which correlates well with the findings of previous studies.,, However, the specificity (94.55%) of TMD was comparable to TMHT (93.94%).
MMT is considered as the gold standard test for the prediction of difficult airway. But this test also has its own limitations. First, this test has a higher interobserver variability and a large number of false positive. Second, statistical heterogeneity has been seen, which could be attributed to the inconsistent way of performing this test. MMT may have been conducted with or without phonation and/or with different head or tongue positions. Meta-analysis done by Lundstrom et al. demonstrated that the MMT, as a standalone test, was an inadequate predictor of a difficult airway. The sensitivity, specificity, and NPV for MMT in our study were comparable to the reported values in earlier studies. However, the PPV for MMT in our study was found to be higher as compared with results found by Krobbuaban et al. The specificity (94.55%) and NPV (92.67%) for MMT were comparable to TMHT.
The limitations of our study were restricted demographic profile and exclusion of emergency patients and AUC for RHTMD was 0.622 (AUC of < 0.7 is considered poor). Also, we had not compared the TMHT with combinations of predictive test.
To conclude, our study demonstrates that TMHT is the best predictive test for difficult laryngoscopy with highest sensitivity, PPV, NPV, and odds ratio out of all predictive tests evaluated. Moreover, TMHT is a simple, bedside test that does not depend on head extension of the patient. TMHT also has small interobserver variability and larger level of accuracy (92.36%) as compared with other predictive test.
We thank Dr. Homay Vajifdar (Professor and ex-Head of Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, New Delhi, India) for her valuable guidance.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Mallampati SR, Gatt SP, Gugino LD, Desai SP, Waraksa B, Freiberger D, et al
. A clinical sign to predict difficult tracheal intubation: A prospective study. Can Anaesth Soc J 1985;32:429-34.
Wilson ME, Spiegelhalter D, Robertson JA, Lesser P. Predicting difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth 1988;61:211-6.
Yamamoto K, Tsubokawa T, Shibata K, Ohmura S, Nitta S, Kobayashi T. Predicting difficult intubation with indirect laryngoscopy. Anesthesiology 1997;86:316-21.
Caplan RA, Posner KL, Ward RJ, Cheney FW. Adverse respiratory events in anesthesia: A closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 1990;72:828-33.
Arne J, Descoins P, Fusciardi J, Ingrand P, Ferrier B, Boudigues D, et al
. Preoperative assessment for difficult intubation in general and ENT surgery: Predictive value of a clinical multivariate risk index. Br J Anaesth 1998;80:140-6.
Oates JDL, Macleod AD, Oates PD, Pearsall FJ, Howie JC, Murray GD. Comparison of two methods for predicting difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth1991;66:305-9.
Etezadi F, Ahangari A, Shokri H, Najafi A, Khajavi MR, Daghigh M, et al
. Thyromental height: A new clinical test for prediction of difficult larynoscopy. Anesth Analg 2013;117:1347-51.
Schmitt HJ, Kirmse M, Radespiel-Troger M. Ratio of patient's height to thyromental distance improves prediction of difficult larynscopy. Anaesth Intensive Care2002;30:763-5.
Badheka JP, Doshi PM, Vyas AM, Kacha NJ, Parmar VS. Comparison of upper lip bite test and ratio of height to thyromental distance with other airway assessment tests for predicting difficult endotracheal intubation. Indian J Crit Care Med 2016;20:3-8.
] [Full text]
Krobbuaban B, Diregpoke S, Kumkeaw S, Tanomsat M. The predictive value of the height ratio and thyromental distance: Four predictive tests for difficult laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg 2005;101:1542-5.
Baker PA, Depuydt A, Thompson JM. Thyromental distance measurement-Fingers don't rule. Anaesthesia 2009;64:878-82.
Samsoon GL, Young JR. Difficult tracheal intubation: A retrospective study. Anaesthesia1987;42:487-90.
Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstretics. Anaesthesia 1984;39:1105-11.
Mohammad EO, Harvey W, Ramez SM. Head and neck position for direct laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg 2011;113:103-9.
Frerk CM. Predicting difficult intubation. Anaesthesia 1991;46:1005-8.
Butler PJ, Dhara SS. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy: An assessment of thyromental distance and Mallampati predictive tests. Anaesth Intensive Care1992;20:139-42.
Rocke DA, Murray WB, Rout CC, Gouws E. Relative risk analysis of factors associated with difficult intubation in obstetric anesthesia. Anesthesiology1992;77:67-73.
Randell T. Prediction of difficult intubation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand1996;40:1016-23.
Bilgin H, Ozyurt G. Screening tests for predicting difficult laryngoscopy: A clinical assessment in Turkish patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 1998;26:382-6.
Prakash S, Kumar A, Bhandari S, Mullick P, Singh R, Gogia AR. Difficult laryngoscopy and intubation in the Indian population: An assessment of anatomical and clinical risk factors. Indian J Anaesth 2013;57:569-75.
] [Full text]
Takahata O, Kubota M, Mamiya K, Akama Y, Nozaka T, Matsumoto H, et al
. The efficacy of the “BURP” maneuver during a difficult laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg 1997;84:419-21.
Selvi O, Kahraman T, Senturk O, Tulgar S, Serifsoy E, Ozer Z. Evaluation of the reliability of preoperative descriptive airway assessment tests in prediction of the Cormack-Lehane score: A prospective randomized clinical study. J Clin Anesth2017;36:21-6.
Jain N, Das S, Kanchi M. Thyromental height test for prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgical procedure. Ann Card Anaesth 2017;20:207-11.
] [Full text]
Rao KV, Dhatchinamoorthi D, Nandhakumar A, Selvarajan N, Akula HR, Thiruvenkatarajan V. Validity of thyromental height test as a predictor of difficult laryngoscopy: A prospective evaluation comparing modified Mallampati score, interincisor gap, thyromental distance, neck circumference, and neck extension. Indian J Anaesth 2018;62:603-8.
] [Full text]
Sagiv D, Eyal A, Mansour J, Nakache G, Wolf M, Primov-Fever A. Novel anatomic characteristics of the laryngeal framework: A computed tomography evaluation. Otolaryngol Head and Neck Surg 2016;154:674-8.
Safavi M, Honarmand A, Zare N. A comparison of the ratio of patient's height to thyromental distance with modified mallampati and the upper lip bite test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy. Saudi J Anaesth 2011;5:258-63.
Krishna H, Agarwal M, Dali J, Rampal P, Dua C. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in Indian population: Role of ratio of patient's height to thyromental distance. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2005;21:257-60. [Full text]
Huh J, Shin HY, Kim SH, Yoon TK, Kim DK. Diagnostic predictor of difficult laryngoscopy: The hyomental distance ratio. Anesth Analg2009:108;544-8.
Balakrishnan KP, Chockalingam PA. Ethnicity and upper airway measurements: A study in South Indian population. Indian J Anaesth 2017;61:622-8.
] [Full text]
Ittichaikulthol W, Chanpradub S, Amnoundetchakorn S, Arayajarernwong N, Wongkum W. Modified mallampati test and thyromental distance as a predictor of difficult laryngoscopy in Thai patients. J Med Assoc Thai2010;93:84-9.
Oates JD, Macleod AD, Oates PD, Pearsall FJ, Howie JG, Murray GD. Comparison of two methods for predicting difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth 1991;66:305-9.
Shiga T, Wazima Z, Inoue T, Sakamoto A. Predicting difficult intubation in apparently normal patients. A meta-analysis of bedside screening test performance. Anesthesiology 2005;103:429-37.
Lundstrom LH, Vester-Andersen M, Moller AM, Charuluxananan S, Lhermite J, Wetterslev J. Poor prognostic value of the modified Mallampati score: A meta-analysis involving 177088 patients. Br J Anaesth2011;107:659-67.
[Figure 2], [Figure 1], [Figure 3]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
|This article has been cited by|
||Assessment of the Thyromental Height Test as an Effective Airway Evaluation Tool
| ||Barret Zimmerman,Hannah Chason,Alexandra Schick,Nicholas Asselin,David Lindquist,Nicholas Musisca |
| ||Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2021; 77(3): 305 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Development and validation of a difficult laryngoscopy prediction model using machine learning of neck circumference and thyromental height
| ||Jong Ho Kim,Haewon Kim,Ji Su Jang,Sung Mi Hwang,So Young Lim,Jae Jun Lee,Young Suk Kwon |
| ||BMC Anesthesiology. 2021; 21(1) |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Wilsonæs score and intubation prediction score for prediction of difficult airway in an eastern Indian population—A prospective single-blind study
| ||Sri Vidhya,Brahmanand Sharma,BhanuP Swain,UK Singh |
| ||Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2020; 9(3): 1436 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|