- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Evaluation of preoperative difficult airway prediction methods for adult patients without obvious airway abnormalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMC Anesthesiology volume 24, Article number: 242 (2024)
Abstract
Background
This systematic review aims to assist clinical decision-making in selecting appropriate preoperative prediction methods for difficult tracheal intubation by identifying and synthesizing literature on these methods in adult patients undergoing all types of surgery.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive electronic searches across multiple databases were completed on March 28, 2023. Two researchers independently screened, selected studies, and extracted data. A total of 227 articles representing 526 studies were included and evaluated for bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-Disc software computed pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPC), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient, Cochran’s-Q, and I2 index, with meta-regression exploring sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using Deeks’ funnel plot.
Results
Out of 2906 articles retrieved, 227 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 686,089 patients. The review examined 11 methods for predicting difficult tracheal intubation, categorized into physical examination, multivariate scoring system, and imaging test. The modified Mallampati test (MMT) showed a SEN of 0.39 and SPC of 0.86, while the thyromental distance (TMD) had a SEN of 0.38 and SPC of 0.83. The upper lip bite test (ULBT) presented a SEN of 0.52 and SPC of 0.84. Multivariate scoring systems like LEMON and Wilson’s risk score demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity. Imaging tests, particularly ultrasound-based methods such as the distance from the skin to the epiglottis (US-DSE), exhibited higher sensitivity (0.80) and specificity (0.77). Significant heterogeneity was identified across studies, influenced by factors such as sample size and study design.
Conclusion
No single preoperative prediction method shows clear superiority for predicting difficult tracheal intubation. The evidence supports a combined approach using multiple methods tailored to specific patient demographics and clinical contexts. Future research should focus on integrating advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and deep learning to improve predictive models. Standardizing testing procedures and establishing clear cut-off values are essential for enhancing prediction reliability and accuracy. Implementing a multi-modal predictive approach may reduce unanticipated difficult intubations, improving patient safety and outcomes.
Background
Rational
With the rapid development of anesthesia-related technologies, breakthrough devices such as video laryngoscopes and supraglottic airway devices(SGAs) have greatly facilitated the work of anesthesiologists and other healthcare workers in airway management [1]. However, difficult airway management remains a major challenge for anesthesiologists. Difficult airways refer to clinical situations where skilled healthcare professionals encounter difficulties when using tools such as face masks or tracheal intubation stylets for ventilation [2]. The occurrence of difficult airways means that unconscious patients may suffer irreversible brain damage or even death due to inadequate oxygen supply or ventilation. Moreover, research has found that more than 30% of serious anesthesia-related complications are caused by improper airway management [3]. Therefore, accurately predicting the possibility of difficult airway occurrence before surgery can ensure that anesthesiologists make sufficient preoperative preparations and anticipate the occurrence of difficult airways, so as to respond promptly when it occurs.
Currently, various types of methods have been proposed for predicting difficult airways. This article mainly analyzes the prediction methods for difficult tracheal intubation. There are three main categories: physical examination, multivariate scoring system and imaging test. However, multiple studies have shown significant differences in the accuracy and reliability of these methods. For example, one study showed that using the modified Mallampati score to predict difficult airway intubation had a sensitivity (SEN) of 0.96 and specificity (SPC) of 0.55 [4]. However, another showed completely opposite results with a SEN of 0.38 and SPC of 0.9 [5]. Therefore, conducting a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of various prediction methods and providing decision-making references for clinical practice has become particularly important.
Objective
This systematic review aims to assist clinical decision-making in selecting appropriate preoperative prediction methods for difficult tracheal intubation by identifying and synthesizing literature on these methods in adult patients undergoing all types of surgery.
Methods
Registration
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on diagnostic test accuracy following the PRISMA guidelines [6]. Before screening literature, we developed and registered a review protocol in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023412075; accessed March 28th, 2023) to guide the entire process.
Eligibility Criteria
This meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy will only include studies that meet specific criteria. Eligible studies must have aimed to evaluate the accuracy of one or more methods for predicting difficult tracheal intubation and provided accuracy data, such as true positive [7]. Additionally, studies must have been published in Chinese or English and included a study population of adults aged 16 years or older with no apparent airway abnormalities who underwent general tracheal intubation using a standard laryngoscope [8]. Studies with incomplete data or populations with airway abnormalities, rapid sequence intubation during surgery, or history of difficult airways will be excluded. Comments, editorials, conference abstracts, reviews, meta-analyses, or case reports will also not be included.
Given that there is no universally accepted definition for difficult tracheal intubation, this meta-analysis adopts the definitions used by the researchers in each included study. Specifically, difficult tracheal intubation is defined either by a Cormack-Lehane grade III or IV classification, which indicates difficulty in visualizing the vocal cords during laryngoscopy, or by the need for several attempts to successfully intubate. This approach ensures inclusivity of various operational definitions used in the current literature and allows for a comprehensive analysis of the predictive methods [8].
Information Sources and Search Methods
This meta-analysis conducted a comprehensive electronic search on March 28, 2023, from the following databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. The literature lists of eligible studies and relevant review articles were also screened. There was no publication date limit for this selection.
The search strategy used was as follows: ((((((((((test[Title/Abstract]) OR (tests[Title/Abstract])) OR (exam[Title/Abstract])) OR (examination[Title/Abstract])) OR (predict[Title/Abstract])) OR (predictor[Title/Abstract])) OR (assessment[Title/Abstract])) OR (exam[Title/Abstract])) OR (physical examination [ Title / Abstract])) or management [ Title / Abstract]) AND ((((((difficult airway [ Title / Abstract]) or difficult intubation [ Title / Abstract]) or difficult face mask ventilation [ Title / Abstract]) or difficult laryngoscopy [ Title / Abstract]) Or difficult tracheal intubation [ title / abstract])) or airway management [ title / abstract]).
Study Selection
Two researchers (ZW and YJ) conducted independent screenings. The first round assessed the relevance of abstracts and titles, while the second round confirmed selected studies' relevance and compliance with inclusion criteria. Any uncertainties or disagreements were resolved through consensus or judgment from a third researcher (JS).
Data Collection Process
Two researchers (ZW and YJ) independently extracted and calculated data from each included studies in standardized tables in Microsoft Excel. Any uncertainties or disagreements during the data collection process were resolved through consensus or judgment from a third independent researcher (JS).
Data Items
During the data collection process, two researchers (ZW and YJ) independently collect the following data from each included study: author name, publication year, research location, research design and methods, patient demographic, sample size, difficult tracheal intubation prevalence rate, ultrasound measurement indicators, cut-off values of ultrasound measurement indicators, accuracy data, sensitivity, and specificity. If the research involves multiple prediction methods or multiple data for a single method, each set of data will be recorded as an individual study.
Risk of Bias in Individual Studies
Two researchers (ZW and YL) used the revised version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool to independently assess the quality of all included studies. This assessment process was conducted using Review Manager 5. Any uncertainties or disagreements during this process were resolved through consensus or judgment from a third independent researcher (JS).
Summary Measures and Planned Methods of Analysis
We used Meta-Disc statistical software version 1.4 to analyze the data [9]. For the meta-analysis, we computed SEN, SPC, PLR, NLR, and DOR for each eligible study using accuracy data.
We assessed heterogeneity by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient and examining the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for a "shoulder-arm" point distribution [10]. A strong positive correlation or a "shoulder-arm" point distribution indicates a threshold effect. We also used Cochran's-Q value and I [2] index to identify non-threshold heterogeneity, with p-values ≤ 0.1 indicating significant heterogeneity. If there was no heterogeneity among studies, we used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis; otherwise, we used a random-effects model instead. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) along with their respective 95% confidence intervals based on whether there was heterogeneity or not. Additionally, we plotted an SROC curve to determine its area under the curve (AUC) and Q* index [11]. We employed meta-regression analysis to further examine potential sources of heterogeneity.
We used Deeks' funnel plot method in STATA version 17.0 with the MIDAS module to assess publication bias [12]. A p-value below 0.05 suggests the presence of significant publication bias.
Results
Study Selection
We retrieved 2906 articles through a literature search in multiple databases. After excluding 1423 duplicates, we were left with 1483 articles. We screened the titles and abstracts of these articles, excluding 1229 for reasons such as unrelated content (1198 studies), literature reviews/meta-analyses/comments/editorials (26 articles), children as participants (3 articles), or mannequin/simulator studies (2 articles). This left us with 254 remaining articles. In the second round of screening, we evaluated full-text papers and excluded another 27 that lacked required data or couldn't calculate it based on available information. Ultimately, our meta-analysis included 227 eligible studies involving a total of 686,089 patients [4, 5, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234]. Fig. 1 summarizes our process for identifying, screening, and selecting literature.
Flow diagram of included and excluded studies
Study characteristics
In this study, 227 papers were analyzed, including 526 studies with a total of 686,089 patients. Of these patients, 37,836 had difficult tracheal intubation (prevalence rate of 5.51%). Most of the papers were published in English and the remaining 35 were published in Chinese [4, 47, 62, 67,68,69, 76, 80, 86, 87, 118, 120, 137, 138, 148, 153, 156, 164, 167, 168, 170, 173, 177, 178, 191, 193, 205,206,207, 212,213,214, 216, 221, 224]. Supplementary Table S1 summarizes the important characteristics of all included studies.
Most of these studies (159 articles) were conducted in Asia [4, 17, 19, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39,40,41,42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 53,54,55,56, 62,63,64, 66,67,68,69, 71,72,73, 76,77,78,79,80, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 95, 98,99,100,101,102,103, 105, 107,108,109, 112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123, 125, 127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134, 136,137,138,139,140,141, 143, 146,147,148, 150,151,152,153, 156, 158, 160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 188,189,190,191,192,193, 195, 196, 198,199,200, 203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217, 219, 221, 223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231, 233,234,235], mainly from India and China followed by Europe (38 articles) [5, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23, 27, 32, 34, 38, 43, 46, 49, 58, 65, 74, 75, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 91, 93, 97, 111, 126, 135, 149, 154, 157, 159, 181, 187, 202, 218], North America (22 articles) [14, 20,21,22, 25, 29, 35, 36, 57, 59,60,61, 70, 94, 96, 106, 124, 142, 144, 145, 155, 194], Africa (7 articles) [45, 48, 52, 184, 197, 201, 222] and South America (1 article) [232]. One hundred seventy-eight papers used prospective design, twelve used retrospective design, eighteen papers used case–control design. Sixty-nine papers used blinded experiment [15, 20, 25, 29,30,31, 44, 50, 57, 60, 61, 63, 71, 75, 77, 86, 90, 91, 95, 98, 102, 112, 115, 116, 123,124,125, 127,128,129, 139, 140, 143, 147, 152, 159,160,161, 169, 171,172,173,174, 179,180,181,182,183, 185, 186, 188,189,190,191,192, 196, 201, 204, 208, 209, 211, 218, 228,229,230, 234]. Twenty-four specifically selected obese populations for research [36, 39, 40, 43, 59, 61, 65, 70, 86, 99, 106, 109, 121, 131, 135, 142, 151, 154, 186, 187, 192, 209, 226] while some excluded obese populations.
Over 50% of the tests were conducted on the day of surgery in the operating room, while 18 were tested one to two days before. While most studies reported sensitivity and specificity for each prediction method, some only recorded accuracy data.
Regarding the prediction methods for difficult intubation, 210 studies used the modified Mallampati test, 128 studies used thyromental distance, 77 studies used upper lip bite test, 25 studies used Wilson's risk score, 9 studies used LEMON, 8 studies used El-Ganzouri risk index, 17 studies utilized ultrasound to measure the distance from the skin to the epiglottis, 10 studies measured the distance from skin to hyoid bone using ultrasound, 9 studies measured the distance from skin to vocal cords using ultrasound, and 7 studies used ultrasound to measure the hyomental distance ratio. Furthermore, 5 studies utilized ultrasound measurements for the ratio between the depth of pre-epiglottic space and the distance from epiglottis to vocal cord.
Risk of Bias Within Studies
The studies' quality was assessed using QUADAS-2, and the findings are presented in Fig. 2. Almost all studies indicated that difficult tracheal intubation assessment was performed before surgery. Only 69 articles explicitly used blinded methods [15, 20, 25, 29,30,31, 44, 50, 57, 60, 61, 63, 71, 75, 77, 86, 90, 91, 95, 98, 102, 112, 115, 116, 123,124,125, 127,128,129, 139, 140, 143, 147, 152, 159,160,161, 169, 171,172,173,174, 179,180,181,182,183, 185, 186, 188,189,190,191,192, 196, 201, 204, 208, 209, 211, 218, 228,229,230, 234]. When assessing the risk of bias in 227 studies using the QUADAS-2 tool, 27 studies showed problems with patient selection, 10 studies showed problems with index testing, 49 studies showed problems with reference standards, and 33 studies showed problems with procedures and timing. High risk factors were mainly due to unclear patient screening criteria or lack of blinded experiments in some studies.
graphical summary of the risk of bias and applicability
Results of Studies by prediction methods
This study examined 11 methods for predicting difficult tracheal intubation, which were selected through literature screening and can be categorized into three types: physical examination, multivariate scoring system, and imaging test. The methods include thyromental distance(TMD), upper lip bite test(ULBT), modified Mallampati test(MMT)LEMON, Wilson’s risk socre(WRS), El-Ganzouri risk index(EGRI), distance from the skin to the epiglottis measured using ultrasound (US-DSE), distance from skin to the hyoid bone measured using ultrasound(US-DSHB), distance from skin to the vocal cords measured using ultrasound(US-DSVC), hyomental distance ratio measured by ultrasound(US-HMDR) and the ratio of the depth of the pre-epiglottic space to the distance between the epiglottis and vocal cords measured using ultrasound (US- Pre-E/E-VC). Table 1 provides detailed information on each method.
Physical examination
For modified Mallampati test, this study analyzed 210 studies involving 532,526 patients, of which there were 25,045 cases of difficult airway intubation. The pooled diagnostic characteristics of modified Mallampati test were as follow: SEN 0.39 (0.39–0.4), SPC 0.86 (0.86–0.86), PLR 2.29 (2.7–3.15), NLR 0.62 (0.6–0.65), DOR 5.59(5.05–6.19) and AUC of 0.7445, with a Q* index of 0.6889. See Fig. 3.
For thyromental distance, this study analyzed 128 studies involving 68,603 patients, of which there were 5230 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.38 (0.37-0.4), SPC of 0.83 (0.84-0.83), PLR of 2.78 (2.44-3.17), NLR of 0.72 (0.68-0.77), DOR of 4.51(3.69-5.51) and AUC of 0.7197, with a Q* index of 0.6687. See Fig 4.
Forest plot of modified Mallampati test
Forest plot of thyromental distance
For upper lip bite test, this study analyzed 77 studies involving 38,164 patients, of which there were 3344 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.52 (0.51–0.54), SPC of 0.84 (0.83–0.84), PLR of 6.54 (4.6–9.29), NLR of 0.51 (0.45–0.59), DOR of 15.15(10.6–21.65) and AUC of 0.8518, with a Q* index of 0.7829. See Fig. 5.
Forest plot of upper lip bite test
Multivariate scoring system
For LEMON, this study analyzed 9 studies involving 5756 patients, of which there were 462 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.58 (0.54–0.63), SPC of 0.85 (0.84–0.86), PLR of 3.99 (2.57–6.19), NLR of 0.46 (0.29–0.72), DOR of 9.01(3.99–20.32) and AUC of 0.8698, with a Q* index of 0.8003. See Fig. 6.
Forest plot of LEMON
For Wilson’s risk score, this study analyzed 25 studies involving 12,601 patients, of which there were 1222 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.42 (0.40–0.45), SPC of 0.81 (0.80–0.81), PLR of 4.18 (2.82–6.18), NLR of 0.56 (0.43–0.73), DOR of 7.93(4.37–14.4) and AUC of 0.7799, with a Q* index of 0.7185. See Fig. 7.
Forest plot of Wilson’s risk score
For El-Ganzouri risk index, this study analyzed 8 studies involving 13,604 patients, of which there were 1017 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.54 (0.51–0.57), SPC of 0.8 (0.80–0.81), PLR of 1.79 (0.33–9.81), NLR of 1.05 (0.39–2.78), DOR of 1.72(0.09–31.77) and AUC of 0.4888, with a Q* index of 0.4916. See Fig. 8.
Forest plot of El-Ganzouri risk index
Imaging test
For US-DSE, this study analyzed 17 studies involving 2804 patients, of which there were 395 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.80 (0.75–0.84), SPC of 0.77 (0.74–0.79), PLR of 3.97 (2.88–5.47), NLR of 0.3 (0.23–0.38), DOR of 17.25(9.55–31.17) and AUC of 0.8715, with a Q* index of 0.802. See Fig. 9.
Forest plot of US-DSE
For US-DSHB, this study analyzed 10 studies involving 1634 patients, of which there were 194 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.70 (0.63–0.76), SPC of 0.65 (0.63–0.68), PLR of 2.04 (1.56–2.68), NLR of 0.51 (0.39–0.66), DOR of 4.61(2.69–7.89) and AUC of 0.7366, with a Q* index of 0.6824. See Fig. 10.
Forest plot of US-DSHB
For US-DSVC, this study analyzed 9 studies involving 1209 patients, of which there were 144 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.67 (0.59–0.75), SPC of 0.68 (0.65–0.71), PLR of 1.96 (1.53–2.52), NLR of 0.56 (0.45–0.70), DOR of 4.06(2.72–6.06) and AUC of 0.7183, with a Q* index of 0.6676. See Fig. 11.
Forest plot of US-DSVC
For US-HMDR, this study analyzed 7 studies involving 831 patients, of which there were 116 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.72 (0.63–0.80), SPC of 0.80 (0.77–0.83), PLR of 3.62 (2.48–5.28), NLR of 0.38 (0.26–0.56), DOR of 11.61(7.09–19.02) and AUC of 0.8378, with a Q* index of 0.7698. See Fig. 12.
Forest plot of US-HMDR
For US-Pre-E/E-VC, this study analyzed 5 studies involving 586 patients, of which there were 99 cases of difficult tracheal intubation. The pooled results showed a SEN of 0.72 (0.63–0.80), SPC of 0.80 (0.77–0.83), PLR of 3.62 (2.48–5.28), NLR of 0.38 (0.26–0.56), DOR of 11.61(7.09–19.02) and AUC of 0.8378, with a Q* index of 0.7698. See Fig. 13.
Forest plot of US-Pre-E/E-VC
The detailed results of each prediction method can be seen in Table 2.
Reporting Biases
According to the Spearman correlation coefficient and the shape of the SROC curve, it can be concluded that there is no significant threshold effect in the accuracy evaluation of difficult airway intubation prediction methods included in this meta-analysis. However, non-threshold effects are present in each prediction method included, and there is significant heterogeneity in the pooled SEN, SPC, PLR, NLR and DOR of each method. As a result, we used a random effects model for meta-analysis.
This study used meta-regression to identify the sources of significant heterogeneity resulting from non-threshold effects. Possible covariates such as patient demographics (age, height, weight, and BMI), study design(case control or not), blind(blinded or not), sample size(< 100 or ≥ 100) [12] and obese(obese population or not) were analyzed using bivariate models.
The Meta-regression results are showed in Supplementary fig S1. The sources of potential heterogeneity cannot be determined for most prediction methods. (P > 0.05). However, for MMT, sample size may be the primary cause of heterogeneity (P = 0.02); for TMD, studying obese populations specifically could be the main source of heterogeneity (p = 0.0315); for ULBT, being a case control trial might be the primary cause of heterogeneity (p = 0.0068); for LEMON, conducting a blinded study could be the main source of heterogeneity (p = 0.02); and for Wilson’s risk score, conducting a blinded study could be the main source of heterogeneity (p = 0.0139).
This study used Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test to evaluate publication bias, and Fig. 14 displays the results which indicate no significant bias (p > 0.01).
Deek's funnel plot of publication bias
Discussion
The challenge of predicting difficult tracheal intubation has been a longstanding concern in the realm of anesthesiology. The consequences of an unanticipated difficult airway can be profound, ranging from prolonged surgical times to severe patient morbidity. This systematic review and meta-analysis was methodically conducted to synthesize the extant literature pertaining to diverse predictive methodologies, thereby furnishing a holistic evaluation of their diagnostic precision.
Physical examination
Conventional methods, notably the Modified Mallampati Test, have long been entrenched in clinical paradigms due to their non-invasive nature and expedient application. However, the derived pooled sensitivity of 0.39 for this particular test underscores its potential limitations, particularly in its capacity to comprehensively identify patients predisposed to difficult intubation scenarios. As for the Thyromental Distance, it shares similar advantages to the Modified Mallampati Test, but its pooled sensitivity of 0.38 also renders it unsuitable as a standalone method for the assessment of difficult tracheal intubation The results for these two methods align with those derived from Roth's study [8]. As for the Upper Lip Bite Test, the pooled sensitivity obtained in this study was 0.52, significantly lower than previous similar studies [8]. Such discrepancies might arise due to variations in sample sizes or differences in the inclusion criteria for the literature. In summary, all three aforementioned physical examination methods exhibit high specificity and low sensitivity, making them unsuitable for sole reliance in predicting difficult tracheal intubation.
Multivariate scoring system
Composite indices, such as the LEMON score, are designed to amalgamate multiple clinical variables, aiming for a comprehensive assessment. However, a pooled sensitivity of 0.58, while an improvement over some standalone physical examination methods, still presents challenges. Similar results are also reflected in Wilson’s risk score and the El-Ganzouri risk index, with this study's derived pooled sensitivities being 0.42 and 0.54, respectively. These data suggest that while multivariate scores provide a broader perspective, they are not foolproof and should be used in conjunction with other assessment tools.
Imaging test
The incorporation of imaging techniques, with an emphasis on ultrasound-based methodologies, represents a paradigmatic shift in predictive strategies. The US-DSE method, boasting a pooled sensitivity of 0.80, underscores the promise inherent in these techniques. Their capacity to proffer granular anatomical insights in real-time is unparalleled. Recent studies, such as the meta-analysis by Carsetti et al., have further validated the use of ultrasound in airway assessment. Carsetti et al. found that ultrasound can be a reliable predictor of difficult direct laryngoscopy, supporting our findings on the effectiveness of ultrasound-based methods. Their study emphasizes the potential of incorporating advanced imaging techniques into routine preoperative assessments to enhance predictive accuracy [236]. However, it's imperative to acknowledge the operator-dependent nature of these modalities, which necessitates rigorous training to ensure consistent efficacy. Moreover, at the current stage, there is no standardized method for using ultrasound equipment to predict difficult tracheal intubation, nor a defined cut-off point. There is also insufficient data to prove the true effectiveness of such predictive methods. Therefore, the establishment of standardized testing procedures for these methods, the determination of cut-off points, and further in-depth research are essential.
Future Directions
The nexus of medical technology and data analytics holds immense promise. The potential integration of artificial intelligence and deep learning algorithms, trained on expansive datasets, could revolutionize predictive accuracy. These algorithms could discern intricate patterns or correlations, potentially overlooked in traditional assessments. For example, Tavolara’s study proposed a deep learning model designed to identify patients who are difficult to intubate using frontal face images, leveraging an ensemble of convolutional neural networks. The proposed model outperforms traditional bedside tests, achieving an AUC of 0.7105 [237]. Hayasaka’s study utilized convolutional neural networks to link patients' facial images with intubation difficulty, creating an AI model capable of classifying intubation difficulty. This model achieved an accuracy of 80.5%, with an AUC of 0.864 [238]. Moreover, the exploration of patient-centric factors, such as genetic markers, proteomic profiles, or even biomechanical attributes, could further refine predictive models. Currently, there are studies targeting specific patients or diseases, using biomarkers to predict difficult tracheal intubation. For instance, Iacovazzo's study assessed the correlation between the likelihood of a difficult airway occurrence and the Insulin-like Growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels in patients with GH-producing pituitary adenoma. The findings underscored a pronounced correlation between high IGF-1 levels and the occurrence of difficult airway [239].
Limitations
This systematic review and meta-analysis encounter several limitations that must be acknowledged. A significant limitation is the heterogeneity of the included studies, with variations in patient demographics, study designs, and definitions of difficult tracheal intubation contributing to this heterogeneity. The lack of a standardized definition for difficult tracheal intubation across studies introduces potential bias and variability in the results. While most studies define Cormack-Lehane (CL) grades III and IV as indicators of difficult tracheal intubation, this definition only identifies difficulty in vocal cord visualization during direct laryngoscopy and does not necessarily equate to difficult tracheal intubation [8]. Relying solely on CL grading may introduce bias despite its high correlation with difficult tracheal intubation [7]. Some studies define difficulty based on the number of intubation attempts, but this approach is highly dependent on the clinician's skill level.
Additionally, the operator-dependent nature of certain techniques, such as ultrasound-based methods, necessitates rigorous training and standardization to ensure consistent efficacy. Differences in cutoff points among prediction methods and variations in clinician ability can further complicate the interpretation and comparison of findings. The potential for publication bias remains another limitation, despite the use of Deeks' funnel plot to assess it, as studies with negative or inconclusive results may be underreported.
Future research should address these limitations by standardizing definitions and methodologies, ensuring rigorous training for operator-dependent techniques, and exploring advanced technologies to improve predictive accuracy. By mitigating these limitations, future studies can provide more reliable and generalizable evidence for the prediction of difficult tracheal intubation.
Conclusions
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated various preoperative prediction methods for difficult tracheal intubation in adult patients without obvious airway abnormalities. The findings indicate that no single method demonstrates unequivocal superiority in predictive accuracy. Traditional physical examination methods, such as the modified Mallampati test, thyromental distance, and upper lip bite test, exhibit high specificity but low sensitivity, limiting their utility as standalone predictive tools.
Multivariate scoring systems, including the LEMON score and Wilson’s risk score, provide a more comprehensive assessment by integrating multiple clinical variables, yet their sensitivity remains moderate. Imaging techniques, particularly ultrasound-based methods like the distance from the skin to the epiglottis, show higher sensitivity and specificity, suggesting their potential in enhancing predictive accuracy. However, the effectiveness of these methods is influenced by factors such as operator skill and the lack of standardized procedures and cut-off values.
The existing evidence underscores the need for a synergistic approach that combines various predictive techniques tailored to specific patient demographics and clinical contexts. Future research should focus on integrating advanced technologies, particularly artificial intelligence and deep learning algorithms, to improve predictive models. Additionally, exploring patient-specific factors, such as genetic markers and biomechanical attributes, could further refine these models.
For clinical practice, it is crucial to standardize testing procedures and establish clear cut-off values to enhance the reliability and accuracy of preoperative difficult airway prediction. Implementing a multi-modal predictive approach in clinical settings may reduce the incidence of unanticipated difficult intubations, thereby improving patient safety and outcomes.
In conclusion, a synergistic approach combining multiple predictive methods tailored to individual patient profiles offers the most promising direction for future research and clinical application. Standardizing procedures and leveraging technological advancements are essential steps towards better management of difficult airway predictions.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Connis RT, Abdelmalak BB, Agarkar M, Dutton RP, et al. 2022 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 2022;136(1):31–81.
Mosier JM, Joshi R, Hypes C, Pacheco G, Valenzuela T, Sakles JC. The Physiologically Difficult Airway. West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(7):1109–17.
Li X, Li J, LIu L, Min J. Diagnostic Accuracy of Wilson Score for Predicating Difficult Intubation: A Meta-Analysis. Chin J Evid-based Med. 2013;13(05):574–9.
Wang B, Wu H, Jin X, Yao W. Modified Mallampati test plus thyromental distance to predict difficult airway. J of Wannan Medical College. 2016;35(05):492–5.
De Cassai A, Papaccio F, Betteto G, Schiavolin C, Iacobone M, Carron M. Prediction of difficult tracheal intubations in thyroid surgery. Predictive value of neck circumference to thyromental distance ratio. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0212976.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.
Detsky ME, Jivraj N, Adhikari NK, Friedrich JO, Pinto R, Simel DL, et al. Will This Patient Be Difficult to Intubate?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review. Jama.321(5):493–503.
Roth D, Pace NL, Lee A, Hovhannisyan K, Warenits AM, Arrich J, et al. Airway physical examination tests for detection of difficult airway management in apparently normal adult patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5(5):Cd008874.
Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31.
Gatsonis C, Paliwal P. Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(2):271–81.
Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:Ed000142.
Ji C, Ni Q, Chen W. Diagnostic accuracy of radiology (CT, X-ray, US) for predicting difficult intubation in adults: A meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2018;45:79–87.
Wilson ME, Spiegelhalter D, Robertson JA, Lesser P. Predicting difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1988;61(2):211–6.
Frerk CM. Predicting difficult intubation. Anaesthesia. 1991;46(12):1005–8.
Oates JD, Macleod AD, Oates PD, Pearsall FJ, Howie JC, Murray GD. Comparison of two methods for predicting difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1991;66(3):305–9.
Pottecher T, Velten M, Galani M, Forrler M. Comparative value of clinical signs of difficult tracheal intubation in women. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1991;10(5):430–5.
Butler PJ, Dhara SS. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy: an assessment of the thyromental distance and Mallampati predictive tests. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1992;20(2):139–42.
Descoins P, Arné J, Bresard D, Ariès J, Fusciardi J. Proposal for a new multifactor screening score of difficult intubation in ORL and stomatognathic surgery: preliminary study. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1994;13(2):195–200.
Savva D. Prediction of difficult tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1994;73(2):149–53.
Samra SK, Schork MA, Guinto FC Jr. A study of radiologic imaging techniques and airway grading to predict a difficult endotracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth. 1995;7(5):373–9.
el-Ganzouri AR, McCarthy RJ, Tuman KJ, Tanck EN, Ivankovich AD. Preoperative airway assessment: predictive value of a multivariate risk index. Anesth Analg. 1996;82(6):1197–204.
Frerk CM, Till CB, Bradley AJ. Difficult intubation: thyromental distance and the atlanto-occipital gap. Anaesthesia. 1996;51(8):738–40.
Bergler W, Maleck W, Baker-Schreyer A, Petroianu G, Hörmann K. Difficult intubation in otorhinolaryngologic laser surgery. Is there a predictive parameter? HNO. 1997;45(11):923–6.
Nath G, Sekar M. Predicting difficult intubation–a comprehensive scoring system. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1997;25(5):482–6.
Tse J, Rimm E, Hussain A. Predicting difficult endotracheal intubation in surgical patients schedules for general anesthesia: a prospective blind study. J Emerg Med. 1997;2(15):266.
Yamamoto K, Tsubokawa T, Shibata K, Ohmura S, Nitta S, Kobayashi T. Predicting difficult intubation with indirect laryngoscopy. Anesthesiology. 1997;86(2):316–21.
Arné 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(2):140–6.
Bilgin H, Özyurt G. Screening tests for predicting difficult intubation. A clinical assessment in Turkish patients. Anaesthesia and intensive care. 1998;26(4):382–6.
Nadal J, Fernandez B, Escobar I, Black M, RosenblattM. D W. The palm print as a sensitive predictor of difficult laryngoscopy in diabetics. Acta Anaesth Scand. 1998;42(2):199–203.
Naguib M, Malabarey T, AlSatli RA, Al Damegh S, Samarkandi AH. Predictive models for difficult laryngoscopy and intubation. A clinical, radiologic and three-dimensional computer imaging study. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46(8):748–59.
Wong SH, Hung CT. Prevalence and prediction of difficult intubation in Chinese women. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1999;27(1):49–52.
Schmitt H, Buchfelder M, Radespiel-Tröger M, Fahlbusch R. Difficult intubation in acromegalic patients: incidence and predictability. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(1):110–4.
Vani V, Kamath SK, Naik LD. The palm print as a sensitive predictor of difficult laryngoscopy in diabetics: a comparison with other airway evaluation indices. J Postgrad Med. 2000;46(2):75–9.
Adnet F, Racine SX, Borron SW, Clemessy JL, Fournier JL, Lapostolle F, et al. A survey of tracheal intubation difficulty in the operating room: a prospective observational study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2001;45(3):327–32.
Ezri T, Warters RD, Szmuk P, Saad-Eddin H, Geva D, Katz J, et al. The incidence of class "zero" airway and the impact of Mallampati score, age, sex, and body mass index on prediction of laryngoscopy grade. Anesth Analg. 2001;93(4):1073–5, table of contents.
Brodsky JB, Lemmens HJ, Brock-Utne JG, Vierra M, Saidman LJ. Morbid obesity and tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 2002;94(3):732–6; table of contents.
Koh LK, Kong CE, Ip-Yam PC. The modified Cormack-Lehane score for the grading of direct laryngoscopy: evaluation in the Asian population. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002;30(1):48–51.
Ayuso MA, Sala X, Luis M, Carbo JM. Predicting difficult orotracheal intubation in pharyngo-laryngeal disease: preliminary results of a composite index. Can J Anesthesia. 2003;50(1):81.
Ezri T, Gewürtz G, Sessler DI, Medalion B, Szmuk P, Hagberg C, et al. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in obese patients by ultrasound quantification of anterior neck soft tissue. Anaesthesia. 2003;58(11):1111–4.
Ezri T, Medalion B, Weisenberg M, Szmuk P, Warters RD, Charuzi I. Increased body mass index per se is not a predictor of difficult laryngoscopy. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50(2):179–83.
Ezri T, Weisenberg M, Khazin V, Zabeeda D, Sasson L, Shachner A, et al. Difficult laryngoscopy: incidence and predictors in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery versus general surgery patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2003;17(3):321–4.
Gupta S, Pareek S, Dulara SC. Comparison of two methods for predicting difficult intubation in obstetric patients. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2003;17(2):275–85.
Juvin P, Lavaut E, Dupont H, Lefevre P, Demetriou M, Dumoulin JL, et al. Difficult tracheal intubation is more common in obese than in lean patients. Anesth Analg. 2003;97(2):595–600.
Khan ZH, Kashfi A, Ebrahimkhani E. A comparison of the upper lip bite test (a simple new technique) with modified Mallampati classification in predicting difficulty in endotracheal intubation: a prospective blinded study. Anesth Analg. 2003;96(2):595–9, table of contents.
Bouaggad A, Nejmi SE, Bouderka MA, Abbassi O. Prediction of difficult tracheal intubation in thyroid surgery. Anesth Analg. 2004;99(2):603–6, table of contents.
Cattano D, Panicucci E, Paolicchi A, Forfori F, Giunta F, Hagberg C. Risk factors assessment of the difficult airway: an italian survey of 1956 patients. Anesth Analg. 2004;99(6):1774–9.
JIang H, Zhu Y. Study of building up a comprehensive system for predicting difficult tracheal intubation. China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacical Surgery. 2004(02):15–8.
Merah NA, Foulkes-Crabbe DJ, Kushimo OT, Ajayi PA. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in a population of Nigerian obstetric patients. West Afr J Med. 2004;23(1):38–41.
Eberhart LH, Arndt C, Cierpka T, Schwanekamp J, Wulf H, Putzke C. The reliability and validity of the upper lip bite test compared with the Mallampati classification to predict difficult laryngoscopy: an external prospective evaluation. Anesth Analg. 2005;101(1):284–9, table of contents.
Kamalipour H, Bagheri M, Kamali K, Taleie A, Yarmohammadi H. Lateral neck radiography for prediction of difficult orotracheal intubation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22(9):689–93.
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(5):1542–5.
Merah NA, Wong DT, Ffoulkes-Crabbe DJ, Kushimo OT, Bode CO. Modified Mallampati test, thyromental distance and inter-incisor gap are the best predictors of difficult laryngoscopy in West Africans. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52(3):291–6.
Siddiqi R, Kazi WA. Predicting difficult intubation–a comparison between Mallampati classification and Wilson risk-sum. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2005;15(5):253–6.
Bhat R, Mishra S, Badhe A. Comparison of upper lip bite test and modified Mallampati classification in predicting difficult intubation. The Internet Journal of Anesthesiology. 2006;13(1):1–4.
Krobbuaban B, Diregpoke S, Kumkeaw S. An assessment of the ratio of height to thyromental distance compared to thyromental distance as a predictive test for prediction of difficult tracheal intubation in Thai patients. J Med Assoc Thai. 2006;89(5):638–42.
Mahdian SNaM. Mallampati and Thyromental Tests to Predict Difficult Intubation. Journal of Medical Sciences. 2006;6:4.
Naguib M, Scamman FL, O’Sullivan C, Aker J, Ross AF, Kosmach S, et al. Predictive performance of three multivariate difficult tracheal intubation models: a double-blind, case-controlled study. Anesthesia Analgesia. 2006;102(3):818–24.
Cortellazzi P, Minati L, Falcone C, Lamperti M, Caldiroli D. Predictive value of the El-Ganzouri multivariate risk index for difficult tracheal intubation: a comparison of Glidescope videolaryngoscopy and conventional Macintosh laryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99(6):906–11.
Hekiert AM, Mandel J, Mirza N. Laryngoscopies in the obese: predicting problems and optimizing visualization. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007;116(4):312–6.
Hester CE, Dietrich SA, White SW, Secrest JA, Lindgren KR, Smith T. A comparison of preoperative airway assessment techniques: the modified Mallampati and the upper lip bite test. Aana j. 2007;75(3):177–82.
Komatsu R, Sengupta P, Wadhwa A, Akça O, Sessler DI, Ezri T, et al. Ultrasound quantification of anterior soft tissue thickness fails to predict difficult laryngoscopy in obese patients. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(1):32–7.
Shan R, Chen X, Sun L, Peng D, Ye J, Liu J. Research on the use of upper lip bite test for predicting difficult tracheal intubation in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. Guangdong Medical Journal. 2007;04:578–9.
Yildiz TS, Korkmaz F, Solak M, Toker K, Erciyes N, Bayrak F, et al. Prediction of difficult tracheal intubation in Turkish patients: a multi-center methodological study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2007;24(12):1034–40.
Alahyari E, GHAEMI S, Azemati S. Comparison of six methods for predicting difficult intubation in obstetric patients. 2008.
Gonzalez H, Minville V, Delanoue K, Mazerolles M, Concina D, Fourcade O. The importance of increased neck circumference to intubation difficulties in obese patients. Anesth Analg. 2008;106(4):1132–6, table of contents.
Honarmand A, Safavi MR. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in obstetric patients scheduled for Caesarean delivery. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25(9):714–20.
Hu Y, Ou Y, Liu D, Wei X. A Clinical Study of The Combination of Multi- parameter for Difficult Airway Prediction. Western China Medical. 2008;05:1003–4.
Jiang H, Huang Y, Zhu Y. Study on Risk Factors Assessment and Prediction Model of the Difficult Airway. Clinical Medical Journal of China. 2008;04:540–2.
JIang H, Yu C. Comprehensive prediction of airway obstruction in patients with thyroid tumors. Agricultural Reclamation Medicine. 2008(01):22–4.
Mashour GA, Kheterpal S, Vanaharam V, Shanks A, Wang LY, Sandberg WS, et al. The extended Mallampati score and a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus are predictors of difficult laryngoscopy in the morbidly obese. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(6):1919–23.
Salimi A, Farzanegan B, Rastegarpour A, Kolahi AA. Comparison of the upper lip bite test with measurement of thyromental distance for prediction of difficult intubations. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2008;46(2):61–5.
Tuzuner-Oncul AM, Kucukyavuz Z. Prevalence and prediction of difficult intubation in maxillofacial surgery patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66(8):1652–8.
Ali Z, Bithal PK, Prabhakar H, Rath GP, Dash HH. An assessment of the predictors of difficult intubation in patients with acromegaly. J Clin Neurosci. 2009;16(8):1043–5.
Chaves A, Carvalho S, Botelho M. Difficult endotracheal intubation in thyroid surgery: a retrospective study. Internet J Anesthesiol. 2009;22(1).
Domi R. A comparison of Wilson sum score and combination Mallampati, tiromental and sternomental distances for predicting difficult intubation. Maced J Med Sci. 2009;2(2):141–4.
Hu S, Li Y, Chen K, Xu S. Research on the clinical relevance of difficult airway assessment methods. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2009;25(05):447–8.
Huh J, Shin HY, Kim SH, Yoon TK, Kim DK. Diagnostic predictor of difficult laryngoscopy: the hyomental distance ratio. Anesth Analg. 2009;108(2):544–8.
Jeong IM, Seo WG, Woo CH, Bae JY, Mun SH, Kim KM. Prediction of difficult intubation in patients with postburn sternomental contractures: modified onah class. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2009;57(3):290–5.
Khan ZH, Mohammadi M, Rasouli MR, Farrokhnia F, Khan RH. The diagnostic value of the upper lip bite test combined with sternomental distance, thyromental distance, and interincisor distance for prediction of easy laryngoscopy and intubation: a prospective study. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(3):822–4.
Liu J, Jiang H, Zhu Y. Value of 3D-CT reconstruction technology in predicting difficult intubation in patients with oropharyngeal tumor. Shanghai Medical. 2009;32(01):29–33+93.
Lundstrøm LH, Møller AM, Rosenstock C, Astrup G, Gätke MR, Wetterslev J. A documented previous difficult tracheal intubation as a prognostic test for a subsequent difficult tracheal intubation in adults. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(10):1081–8.
Lundstrøm LH, Møller AM, Rosenstock C, Astrup G, Wetterslev J. High body mass index is a weak predictor for difficult and failed tracheal intubation: a cohort study of 91,332 consecutive patients scheduled for direct laryngoscopy registered in the Danish Anesthesia Database. Anesthesiology. 2009;110(2):266–74.
Singh R, Jain A, Mishra S, Kohli P. Clinical evaluation for predicting difficult laryngoscopy in obstetric patients. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2009;25(1):38–42.
Thompson J, O Neill S, Hutchings L, Jones R. Retrospective study of 1602 obstetric intubations: predicting difficult and failed intubation using the Mallampati test. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia. 2009;18(1):S42-S.
Wong P, Parrington S. Difficult intubation in ENT and maxillofacial surgical patients: a prospective survey. The Internet Journal of Anesthesiology. 2009;21(1):1–3.
Wu Y, Yang W, Qin G, Li P. Applicational Value of T he Upper Lip Bite Test for Predicting Difficult Tracheal Intubation in Obstetric Patients. Inner Mongolia Med J. 2009;41(10):1175–7.
Yu C, Jiang X, Jiang H. Evaluation of methods for predicting difficult airway of patients with thyroid tumor JOURNAL OF XINJIANG MEDICAL UNIVERSITY. 2009;32(09):1303–4.
Adamus M, Fritscherova S, Hrabalek L, Gabrhelik T, Zapletalova J, Janout V. Mallampati test as a predictor of laryngoscopic view. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2010;154(4):339–43.
Basaranoglu G, Columb M, Lyons G. Failure to predict difficult tracheal intubation for emergency caesarean section. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27(11):947–9.
Bindra A, Prabhakar H, Singh GP, Ali Z, Singhal V. Is the modified Mallampati test performed in supine position a reliable predictor of difficult tracheal intubation? J Anesth. 2010;24(3):482–5.
Domi R. The best prediction test of difficult intubation. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2010;26(2):193–6.
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 Thai. 2010;93(1):84–9.
Mallat J, Robin E, Pironkov A, Lebuffe G, Tavernier B. Goitre and difficulty of tracheal intubation. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2010;29(6):436–9.
Myneni N, O’Leary AM, Sandison M, Roberts K. Evaluation of the upper lip bite test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy. J Clin Anesth. 2010;22(3):174–8.
Sharma D, Prabhakar H, Bithal PK, Ali Z, Singh GP, Rath GP, et al. Predicting difficult laryngoscopy in acromegaly: a comparison of upper lip bite test with modified Mallampati classification. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2010;22(2):138–43.
Connor CW, Segal S. Accurate classification of difficult intubation by computerized facial analysis. Anesthesia Analgesia. 2011;112(1):84–93.
Fritscherova S, Adamus M, Dostalova K, Koutna J, Hrabalek L, Zapletalova J, et al. Can difficult intubation be easily and rapidly predicted? Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2011;155(2):165–71.
Khan ZH, Maleki A, Makarem J, Mohammadi M, Khan RH, Zandieh A. A comparison of the upper lip bite test with hyomental/thyrosternal distances and mandible length in predicting difficulty in intubation: A prospective study. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55(1):43–6.
Kim WH, Ahn HJ, Lee CJ, Shin BS, Ko JS, Choi SJ, et al. Neck circumference to thyromental distance ratio: a new predictor of difficult intubation in obese patients. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(5):743–8.
Nasir KK, Shahani AS, Maqbool MS. Correlative value of airway assessment by Mallampati classification and Cormack and Lehane grading. Rawal Medical Journal. 2011;36(1):2–6.
Qudaisat IY, Al-Ghanem SM. Short thyromental distance is a surrogate for inadequate head extension, rather than small submandibular space, when indicating possible difficult direct laryngoscopy. European Journal of Anaesthesiology| EJA. 2011;28(8):600–6.
Safavi M, Honarmand A, Zare N. A comparison of the ratio of patient’s height to thyromental distance with the modified Mallampati and the upper lip bite test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5(3):258–63.
Ali MA, Qamar-ul-Hoda M, Samad K. Comparison of upper lip bite test with Mallampati test in the prediction of difficult intubation at a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62(10):1012–5.
Freund Y, Duchateau F-X, Devaud M-L, Ricard-Hibon A, Juvin P, Mantz J. Factors associated with difficult intubation in prehospital emergency medicine. Eur J Emerg Med. 2012;19(5):304–8.
Seo SH, Lee JG, Yu SB, Kim DS, Ryu SJ, Kim KH. Predictors of difficult intubation defined by the intubation difficulty scale (IDS): predictive value of 7 airway assessment factors. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012;63(6):491–7.
Wojtczak JA. Submandibular sonography: assessment of hyomental distances and ratio, tongue size, and floor of the mouth musculature using portable sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(4):523–8.
Ambesh SP, Singh N, Rao PB, Gupta D, Singh PK, Singh U. A combination of the modified Mallampati score, thyromental distance, anatomical abnormality, and cervical mobility (M-TAC) predicts difficult laryngoscopy better than Mallampati classification. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2013;51(2):58–62.
Basunia SR, Ghosh S, Bhattacharya S, Saha I, Biswas A, Prasad A. Comparison between different tests and their combination for prediction of difficult intubation: An analytical study. Anesth Essays Res. 2013;7(1):105–9.
Choi JW, Kim JA, Kim HK, Oh MS, Kim DK. Chest anteroposterior diameter affects difficulty of laryngoscopy for non-morbidly obese patients. J Anesth. 2013;27(4):563–8.
Dr. Mohan K DMRL. Comparison of upper lip bite test with thyromental distance for predicting difficulty in endotracheal intubation: A prospective study. Asian Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2013;3(22):4.
Heinrich S, Birkholz T, Irouschek A, Ackermann A, Schmidt J. Incidences and predictors of difficult laryngoscopy in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia : a single-center analysis of 102,305 cases. J Anesth. 2013;27(6):815–21.
Kamranmanesh MR, Jafari AR, Gharaei B, Aghamohammadi H, Poor Zamany NKM, Kashi AH. Comparison of acromioaxillosuprasternal notch index (a new test) with modified Mallampati test in predicting difficult visualization of larynx. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2013;51(4):141–4.
Khan ZH, Arbabi S. Diagnostic value of the upper lip bite test in predicting difficulty in intubation with head and neck landmarks obtained from lateral neck X-ray. Indian J Anaesth. 2013;57(4):381–6.
Kim C, Kang HG, Lim TH, Choi BY, Shin Y-j, Choi HJ. What factors affect the success rate of the first attempt at endotracheal intubation in emergency departments? Emergency Medicine Journal. 2013;30(11):888–92.
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(6):569–75.
Shah PJ, Dubey KP, Yadav JP. Predictive value of upper lip bite test and ratio of height to thyromental distance compared to other multivariate airway assessment tests for difficult laryngoscopy in apparently normal patients. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29(2):191–5.
Ul Haq MI, Ullah H. Comparison of Mallampati test with lower jaw protrusion maneuver in predicting difficult laryngoscopy and intubation. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29(3):313–7.
Zeng L, Ma X, Gao J. Predictive system study of dificult laryngoscopy. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2013;29(08):789–91.
Baig MM, Khan FH. To compare the accuracy of prayer’s sign and Mallampatti test in predicting difficult intubation in diabetic patients. J Pak Med Assoc. 2014;64(8):879–83.
Cui Y, Cheng B, Huang J, Wang Y. The predictive value of five factors to the maternal difficulty airway. Practical Medical Journal. 2014;30(16):2617–9.
Hashim K, Thomas M. Sensitivity of palm print sign in prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in diabetes: A comparison with other airway indices. Indian J Anaesth. 2014;58(3):298–302.
Hirmanpour A, Safavi M, Honarmand A, Jabalameli M, Banisadr G. The predictive value of the ratio of neck circumference to thyromental distance in comparison with four predictive tests for difficult laryngoscopy in obstetric patients scheduled for caesarean delivery. Adv Biomed Res. 2014;3:200.
Honarmand A, Safavi M, Ansari N. A comparison of between hyomental distance ratios, ratio of height to thyromental, modified Mallamapati classification test and upper lip bite test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy of patients undergoing general anesthesia. Adv Biomed Res. 2014;3:166.
Hui CM, Tsui BC. Sublingual ultrasound as an assessment method for predicting difficult intubation: a pilot study. Anaesthesia. 2014;69(4):314–9.
Khan ZH, Arbabi S, Yekaninejad MS, Khan RH. Application of the upper lip catch test for airway evaluation in edentulous patients: An observational study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2014;8(1):73–7.
Knudsen K, Högman M, Larsson A, Nilsson U. The best method to predict easy intubation: a quasi-experimental pilot study. J Perianesth Nurs. 2014;29(4):292–7.
Mehta T, Jayaprakash J, Shah V. Diagnostic value of different screening tests in isolation or combination for predicting difficult intubation: A prospective study. Indian J Anaesth. 2014;58(6):754–7.
Patel B, Khandekar R, Diwan R, Shah A. Validation of modified Mallampati test with addition of thyromental distance and sternomental distance to predict difficult endotracheal intubation in adults. Indian J Anaesth. 2014;58(2):171–5.
Safavi M, Honarmand A, Amoushahi M. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy: Extended mallampati score versus the MMT. ULBT and RHTMD Adv Biomed Res. 2014;3:133.
Shah AA, Rafique K, Islam M. Can difficult intubation be accurately predicted using upper lip bite test? Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute. 2014;28(3).
Shailaja S, Nichelle SM, Shetty AK, Hegde BR. Comparing ease of intubation in obese and lean patients using intubation difficulty scale. Anesth Essays Res. 2014;8(2):168–74.
V KN, S SK. Risk Factors Assessment of the Difficult Intubation using Intubation Difficulty Scale (IDS). J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(7):Gc01–3.
Wu J, Dong J, Ding Y, Zheng J. Role of anterior neck soft tissue quantifications by ultrasound in predicting difficult laryngoscopy. Med Sci Monit. 2014;20:2343–50.
Aktas S, Atalay YO, Tugrul M. Predictive value of bedside tests for difficult intubations. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(9):1595–9.
De Jong A, Molinari N, Pouzeratte Y, Verzilli D, Chanques G, Jung B, et al. Difficult intubation in obese patients: incidence, risk factors, and complications in the operating theatre and in intensive care units. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114(2):297–306.
Honarmand A, Safavi M, Yaraghi A, Attari M, Khazaei M, Zamani M. Comparison of five methods in predicting difficult laryngoscopy: Neck circumference, neck circumference to thyromental distance ratio, the ratio of height to thyromental distance, upper lip bite test and Mallampati test. Adv Biomed Res. 2015;4:122.
Jin H, Chen P. Study of a new system based on Arne system for predicting difficult laryngoscopy. Hainan Med J. 2015;26(23):3458–60.
Jin H, Chen P. Logistic regression analysis of the risk factors for difficult airway and the cut-off value of height-to-thyromental distance ratio. J South Med Univ. 2015;35(09):1352–5.
Khan ZH, Eskandari S, Yekaninejad MS. A comparison of the Mallampati test in supine and upright positions with and without phonation in predicting difficult laryngoscopy and intubation: A prospective study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015;31(2):207–11.
Kolarkar P, Badwaik G, Watve A, Abhishek K, Bhangale N, Bhalerao A, et al. UPPER LIP BITE TEST : A NOVEL TEST OF PREDICTING DIFFICULTY IN INTUBATION. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2015;4(24):4149–56.
Konwar C, Baruah ND. A prospective study of the usefullness of upper lip bite test in combination with sternomental distance, thyro-mental distance and inter-incisor distance as predictor of ease of laryngoscopy. 2015.
Lee SL, Hosford C, Lee QT, Parnes SM, Shapshay SM. Mallampati class, obesity, and a novel airway trajectory measurement to predict difficult laryngoscopy. Laryngoscope. 2015;125(1):161–6.
Mirunalini G. A prospective observational study to determine the usefulness of ultrasound guided airway assessment preoperatively in predicting difficult airway: Stanley Medical College, Chennai; 2015.
Montemayor-Cruz JM, Guerrero-Ledezma RM. Diagnostic utility of the hyomental distance ratio as predictor of difficult intubation at UMAE 25. Gac Med Mex. 2015;151(5):599–607.
Uribe AA, Zvara DA, Puente EG, Otey AJ, Zhang J, Bergese SD. BMI as a Predictor for Potential Difficult Tracheal Intubation in Males. Front Med (Lausanne). 2015;2:38.
Vallem B, Thalisetty J, Challapalli SR, Israel N, Gudise S, Murthigari S. Comparison of upper lip bite test with other four predictors for predicting difficulty in intubation. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2015;4(39):6811–8.
Wajekar AS, Chellam S, Toal PV. Prediction of ease of laryngoscopy and intubation-role of upper lip bite test, modified mallampati classification, and thyromental distance in various combination. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015;4(1):101–5.
Yang G, Yang B, Wang H, Xu H, Luo G, Guo P, et al. Difficulty predicting the distance between the mouth and chin makes tracheal intubation difficult. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2015;31(02):189–90.
Andruszkiewicz P, Wojtczak J, Sobczyk D, Stach O, Kowalik I. Effectiveness and Validity of Sonographic Upper Airway Evaluation to Predict Difficult Laryngoscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35(10):2243–52.
Aswar SG, Chhatrapati S, Sahu A, Dalvi A, Borhazowal R. Comparing efficacy of modified Mallampati test and upper lip bite test to predict difficult intubation. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:670.
Ayhan A, Kaplan S, Kayhan Z, Arslan G. EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIFFICULT AIRWAY IN OBESITY A SINGLE CENTER RETROSPECTIVE STUDY. Acta Clin Croat. 2016;55(Suppl 1):27–32.
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(1):3–8.
Cao Y, Zhao Y, Chi P. Assessment of the Difficulty in Exposing the Larynx with High Adam’s Apple Height. Beijing Medical. 2016;38(09):880–2.
Dohrn N, Sommer T, Bisgaard J, Rønholm E, Larsen JF. Difficult Tracheal Intubation in Obese Gastric Bypass patients. Obes Surg. 2016;26(11):2640–7.
Healy DW, LaHart EJ, Peoples EE, Jewell ES, Bettendorf RJ Jr, Ramachandran SK. A Comparison of the Mallampati evaluation in neutral or extended cervical spine positions: a retrospective observational study of >80 000 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(5):690–8.
Jing F, Qin X, Li X, Cui X. Predictive Analysis of the Combined Application of Body Mass Index and Neck Circumference for Difficult Airway During Perioperative Period. China & Foreign Medical Treatment. 2016;35(10):97–8.
Kalezić N, Lakićević M, Miličić B, Stojanović M, Sabljak V, Marković D. Hyomental distance in the different head positions and hyomental distance ratio in predicting difficult intubation. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2016;16(3):232–6.
Min JJ, Kim G, Kim E, Lee JH. The diagnostic validity of clinical airway assessments for predicting difficult laryngoscopy using a grey zone approach. J Int Med Res. 2016;44(4):893–904.
Pinto J, Cordeiro L, Pereira C, Gama R, Fernandes HL, Assunção J. Predicting difficult laryngoscopy using ultrasound measurement of distance from skin to epiglottis. J Crit Care. 2016;33:26–31.
Reddy PB, Punetha P, Chalam KS. Ultrasonography - A viable tool for airway assessment. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(11):807–13.
Sangeeta L, Kumar SS, Veena P, Neena J, Pooja M, Kangchai C. Comparison of predictors of difficult intubation. Inter J Clin Biomed Res. 2016;2(1):20–4.
Soltani Mohammadi S, Saliminia A, Nejatifard N, Azma R. Usefulness of Ultrasound View of Larynx in Pre-Anesthetic Airway Assessment: A Comparison With Cormack-Lehane Classification During Direct Laryngoscopy. Anesth Pain Med. 2016;6(6): e39566.
Tantri AR, Firdaus R, Salomo ST. Predictors of Difficult Intubation Among Malay Patients in Indonesia. Anesth Pain Med. 2016;6(2): e34848.
Xu D, Yang L, Wang C, Yang Q, Wen X, Zhou W, et al. The effectiveness of LEMON law in predicting difficult airways. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2016;32(12):1215–7.
Balakrishnan KP, Chockalingam PA. Ethnicity and upper airway measurements: A study in South Indian population. Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61(8):622–8.
Banik D, Ray L, Akhtaruzzaman AK, Bhowmick DK, Hossain MS, Islam MS, et al. Assessment of Difficulties Associated with Endotracheal Intubation using Modified Mallampati and Upper Lip Bite Test. Mymensingh Med J. 2017;26(2):395–405.
Cao Y, Chi P, Heihe H, Zhang B. Assessment of the accuracy of height-to-thyroid cartilage distance compared to Chinese laryngoscopy difficulty. Chinese Journal of Clinical Doctors. 2017;45(11):81–3.
Li L, Wang C, Zhang L, Li Y. Predictors of difficult airway in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome during general anesthesia. J OTOLARYNGOL OPHTHAL SHANDONG UNIV. 2017;31(06):62–7.
Mahmoodpoor A, Soleimanpour H, Golzari SE, Nejabatian A, Pourlak T, Amani M, et al. Determination of the diagnostic value of the Modified Mallampati Score, Upper Lip Bite Test and Facial Angle in predicting difficult intubation: A prospective descriptive study. J Clin Anesth. 2017;37:99–102.
ni H, He G, Shi D, Hang Y. Value of ultrasonic measurement of distance from skin to epiglottis for predicting the difficult airway. JOURNAL OF SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY (MEDICAL SCIENCE). 2017;37(03):373–6.
Parameswari A, Govind M, Vakamudi M. Correlation between preoperative ultrasonographic airway assessment and laryngoscopic view in adult patients: A prospective study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017;33(3):353–8.
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 Anesth. 2017;36:21–6.
Si Y, Wang X, Shi L, Zhang Y, Yin J, Zeng L, et al. Comparison of predictive capability of different methods fro difficult laryngoscopy. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2017;33(01):11–4.
Varghese A, Mohamed T. A comparison of Mallampati scoring, upper lip bite test and sternomental distance in predicting difficult intubation. Int J Res Medical Sci. 2017;4(7):2645–8.
Yao W, Wang B. Can tongue thickness measured by ultrasonography predict difficult tracheal intubation? Br J Anaesth. 2017;118(4):601–9.
Yao W, Zhou Y, Wang B, Yu T, Shen Z, Wu H, et al. Can Mandibular Condylar Mobility Sonography Measurements Predict Difficult Laryngoscopy? Anesth Analg. 2017;124(3):800–6.
Zheng C, Wang B, yao W, Jin X. Difference of thyromental distance and mouth opening in preoperative airway assessment between genders. J of Wannan Medical College. 2017;36(06):582–6.
Cao J. Analysis of the Effectiveness of Different Methods for Predicting Difficult Airway Laryngoscope Intubation. Medical Information. 2018;31(01):186–8.
Chan SMM, Wong WY, Lam SKT, Wong OF, Law WSS, Shiu WYY, et al. Use of ultrasound to predict difficult intubation in Chinese population by assessing the ratio of the pre-epiglottis space distance and the distance between epiglottis and vocal folds. Hong Kong J Emerg Me. 2018;25(3):152–9.
Chhina AK, Jain R, Gautam PL, Garg J, Singh N, Grewal A. Formulation of a multivariate predictive model for difficult intubation: A double blinded prospective study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34(1):62–7.
Falcetta S, Cavallo S, Gabbanelli V, Pelaia P, Sorbello M, Zdravkovic I, et al. Evaluation of two neck ultrasound measurements as predictors of difficult direct laryngoscopy: A prospective observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018;35(8):605–12.
Guo Y, Feng Y, Liang H, Zhang R, Cai X, Pan X. Role of flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy in predicting difficult intubation. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84(3):337–45.
Kaniyil S, Anandan K, Thomas S. Ratio of height to thyromental distance as a predictor of difficult laryngoscopy: A prospective observational study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34(4):485–9.
Mshelia D, Ogboli-Nwasor E, Isamade E. Use of the “L-E-M-O-N” score in predicting difficult intubation in Africans. Nigerian Journal of Basic and Clinical Sciences. 2018;15(1):17–23.
Nazir I, Mehta N. A comparative correlation of pre-anaesthetic airway assessment using ultrasound with Cormack Lehane classification of direct laryngoscopy. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Science (IOSR-JDMS). 2018;17:43–51.
Özdilek A, Beyoglu CA, Erbabacan ŞE, Ekici B, Altındaş F, Vehid S, et al. Correlation of Neck Circumference with Difficult Mask Ventilation and Difficult Laryngoscopy in Morbidly Obese Patients: an Observational Study. Obes Surg. 2018;28(9):2860–7.
Petrisor C, Szabo R, Constantinescu C, Prie A, Hagau N. Ultrasound-based assessment of hyomental distances in neutral, ramped, and maximum hyperextended positions, and derived ratios, for the prediction of difficult airway in the obese population: a pilot diagnostic accuracy study. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2018;50(2):110–6.
Rana S, Verma V, Bhandari S, Sharma S, Koundal V, Chaudhary SK. Point-of-care ultrasound in the airway assessment: A correlation of ultrasonography-guided parameters to the Cormack-Lehane Classification. Saudi J Anaesth. 2018;12(2):292–6.
Shobha D, Adiga M, Rani DD, Kannan S, Nethra SS. Comparison of Upper Lip Bite Test and Ratio of Height to Thyromental Distance with Other Airway Assessment Tests for Predicting Difficult Endotracheal Intubation. Anesth Essays Res. 2018;12(1):124–9.
Siriussawakul A, Maboonyanon P, Kueprakone S, Samankatiwat S, Komoltri C, Thanakiattiwibun C. Predictive performance of a multivariable difficult intubation model for obese patients. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8): e0203142.
Yang F, Wang M, Wang B, Xu J, Qian M, Yao W, et al. Effect of the LEMON method in predicting patients with difficult airway. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2018;34(04):331–5.
Yilmaz C, Karasu D, Dilektasli E, Taha A, Ozgunay SE, Korfali G. An Evaluation of Ultrasound Measurements of Anterior Neck Soft Tissue and Other Predictors of Difficult Laryngoscopy in Morbidly Obese Patients. Bariatr Surg Pract P. 2018;13(1):18–24.
Chen J, Cai M. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy using ultrasound measurement of anterior neck structure. China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacical Surgery. 2019;17(01):48–52.
Fulkerson JS, Moore HM, Lowe RF, Anderson TS, Lucas LL, Reed JW. Airway sonography fails to detect difficult laryngoscopy in an adult Veteran surgical population. Trends Anaesth Critical Care. 2019;29:26–34.
Kim JC, Ki Y, Kim J, Ahn SW. Ethnic considerations in the upper lip bite test: the reliability and validity of the upper lip bite test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy in Koreans. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19(1):9.
Koundal V, Rana S, Thakur R, Chauhan V, Ekke S, Kumar M. The usefulness of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in preanaesthetic airway assessment. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63(12):1022–8.
Sabaa MAA, Amer GF, Saleh AEAA, Elbakery MAEE. Comparative study between El-Ganzouri airway risk index alone and in combination with upper airway ultrasound in preoperative airway assessment. Egypt J Hosp Medicine. 2019;77(5):5621–32.
Tripathi S, Shinde DVS, Shaikh ZP. LEMON SCORE: A TOOL TO PREDICT DIFFICULT AIRWAY IN ED IN INDIAN SETTING. International Journal of Medical and Biomedical Studies. 2019;3(12):62–7.
Wang B, Zheng C, Yao W, Guo L, Peng H, Yang F, et al. Predictors of difficult airway in a Chinese surgical population: the gender effect. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019;85(5):478–86.
Yadav NK, Rudingwa P, Mishra SK, Pannerselvam S. Ultrasound measurement of anterior neck soft tissue and tongue thickness to predict difficult laryngoscopy - An observational analytical study. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63(8):629–34.
Abdelhady BS, Elrabiey MA, Abd Elrahman AH, Mohamed EE. Ultrasonography versus conventional methods (Mallampati score and thyromental distance) for prediction of difficult airway in adult patients. Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2020;36(1):83–9.
Corrente A, Fiore M, Colandrea S, Aurilio C, Passavanti M, Pota V, et al. A new simple score for prediction of difficult laryngoscopy: the EL.GA+ score. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2020;52(3):206–14.
Daggupati H, Maurya I, Singh RD, Ravishankar M. Development of a scoring system for predicting difficult intubation using ultrasonography. Indian J Anaesth. 2020;64(3):187–92.
Lakhe G, Poudel H, Adhikari KM. Assessment of Airway Parameters for Predicting Difficult Laryngoscopy and Intubation in a Tertiary Center in Western Nepal. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2020;17(4):516–20.
Li Y, Li J, Zhong L, Zeng Z. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy by ultrasound quantification of anterior nect soft tissue and tongue volume. Journal of Baotou Medical College. 2020;36(06):1–3+11.
Liu C, Chen X. Evaluation of difficult airway in patients with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome by ultrasonography. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2020;36(04):334–7.
Luo Y, Liu C, Wang P, Wei M, Chen X. Predictive value of ultrasonic measurement of hyomental distance ratio in supine position for difficult airway in Zhuang people. Guangxi Medical Journal. 2020;42(10):1212–4+56.
Ni H, Guan C, He G, Bao Y, Shi D, Zhu Y. Ultrasound measurement of laryngeal structures in the parasagittal plane for the prediction of difficult laryngoscopies in Chinese adults. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):134.
Richa F, Chalhoub V, Gebrayel WB, El-Hage C, El Jamal P, Yazbeck P. Upper lip bite test versus Modified Mallampati classification in predicting difficult laryngoscopy and/or intubation among morbidly obese patients. J Clin Anesth. 2020;63: 109761.
Shetty SR, V.T S. Validation of clinical versus ultrasound parameters in assessment of airway. Trends Anaesth Critical Care. 2020;35:21–7.
Vidhya S, Sharma B, Swain BP, Singh UK. Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Wilson’s score and intubation prediction score for prediction of difficult airway in an eastern Indian population-A prospective single-blind study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(3):1436–41.
Xu J, Qian M, Yao W, Wang B, Jin X. Effectiveness of SimpliOed Airway Risk Index score in predicting difficult airway in Chinese patients. Chin J Anesthesiol. 2020;08:998–1001.
Zheng Z, Ma W, Du R, Chen L, Zheng X. Effectiveness of ultrasound measurement of tongue volume and tongue longitudinal cross-sectional area to predict difficult airway. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2020;36(03):228–33.
Zhou Y, Yuan Y, Yao W, Li Y. Predicting value for difficult laryngoscopy in patients with osahs by measuring tongue thickness with ultrasonography. J of Wannan Medical College. 2020;39(03):263–6.
Ali ST, Samad K, Raza SA, Hoda MQ. Ratio of height to thyromental distance: a comparison with mallampati and upper lip bite test for predicting difficult intubation in Pakistani population. J Pak Med Assoc. 2021;71(6):1570–4.
Chen X, Zhang W, Xia M, Wu H, Wang S. Predictive value of the distance from hyoid to epiglottis measured by ultrasound in difficult laryngoscopy. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2021;37(06):621–4.
Dawood AS, Talib BZ, Sabri IS. PREDICTION OF DIFFICULT INTUBATION BY USING UPPER LIP BITE, THYROMENTAL DISTANCE AND MALLAMPATI SCORE IN COMPARISON TO CORMACK AND LEHANE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. Wiad Lek. 2021;74(9 pt 2):2305–14.
Martínez-García A, Guerrero-Orriach JL, Pino-Gálvez MA. Ultrasonography for predicting a difficult laryngoscopy. Getting closer J Clin Monit Comput. 2021;35(2):269–77.
Saoraya J, Vongkulbhisal K, Kijpaisalratana N, Lumlertgul S, Musikatavorn K, Komindr A. Difficult airway predictors were associated with decreased use of neuromuscular blocking agents in emergency airway management: a retrospective cohort study in Thailand. BMC Emerg Med. 2021;21(1):37.
Wu H, Hu D, Chen X, Zhang X, Xia M, Chai X, et al. The evaluation of maximum condyle-tragus distance can predict difficult airway management without exposing upper respiratory tract; a prospective observational study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021;21(1):28.
Yi S, Cai W, Dong B, Xiao L, Luo Z. Value of ultrasonic measurement of hyomental distance ratio for predicting the difficult airway. Shanxi Medical University Journal. 2021;52(02):231–4.
Alemayehu T, Sitot M, Zemedkun A, Tesfaye S, Angasa D, Abebe F. Assessment of predictors for difficult intubation and laryngoscopy in adult elective surgical patients at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;77: 103682.
Başpınar ŞM, Günüşen İ, Sergin D, Sargın A, Balcıoğlu ST. Evaluation of anthropometric measurements and clinical tests in the diagnosis of difficult airway in patients undergoing head and neck surgery. Turk J Med Sci. 2022;52(3):730–40.
Deng H, Liang D, Ma X, Cai N. Application value of ultrasonography in the difficult airway assessment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome. Journal of Changchun University of Chinese Medicine. 2022;38(12):1392–5.
Kar S, Senapati LK, Samanta P, Satapathy GC. Predictive Value of Modified Mallampati Test and Upper Lip Bite Test Concerning Cormack and Lehane’s Laryngoscopy Grading in the Anticipation of Difficult Intubation: A Cross-Sectional Study at a Tertiary Care Hospital, Bhubaneswar, India. Cureus. 2022;14(9): e28754.
Kheirabadi D, Honarmand A, Rasouli MR, Safavi MR, Maracy MR. Comparison of airway assessment tests for prediction of difficult intubation in obese patients: importance of thyromental height and upper lip bite test. Minerva Anestesiol. 2022;88(3):114–20.
Savatmongkorngul SPP, Sricharoen P, Yuksen C, Jenpanitpong C, Watcharakitpaisan S. Difficult Laryngoscopy Prediction Score for Intubation in Emergency Departments: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Open Access Emergency Medicine. 2022;14:12.
Thomas M, Saldanha NM. Comparison of Upper Lip Bite Test with Modified Mallampati Score in Predicting Difficult Intubation. Int J Sci Healthc Res. 2022;7(1):1–8.
Wang LY, Zhang KD, Zhang ZH, Zhang DX, Wang HL, Qi F. Evaluation of the reliability of the upper lip bite test and the modified mallampati test in predicting difficult intubation under direct laryngoscopy in apparently normal patients: a prospective observational clinical study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2022;22(1):314.
Wu H, Wang H. Diagnostic Efficacy and Clinical Value of Ultrasonography in Difficult Airway Assessment: Based on a Prospective Cohort Study. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2022;2022:4706438.
Alp G, Koşucu M. Which test best predicts difficult endotracheal intubation? A prospective cohort study. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2023;29(4):477–85.
Bicalho GP, Bessa RC Jr, Cruvinel MGC, Carneiro FS, Castilho JB, Castro CHV. A prospective validation and comparison of three multivariate models for prediction of difficult intubation in adult patients. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2023;73(2):153–8.
Kumar MS, K VZ, J CJ. Airway assessment: Predictors for difficult intubation – A prospective observational study. Indian J Clin Anaesth. 2023;10(1):11–20.
Moslemi F, Khan ZH, Alizadeh E, Khamnian Z, Eftekhar N, Hosseini MS, et al. Upper lip bite test compared to modified Mallampati test in predicting difficult airway in obstetrics: A prospective observational study. J Perioper Pract. 2023;33(4):116–21.
Agung Senapathi T, Wiryana M, Aryabiantara I, Ryalino C, Roostati R. The predictive value of skin-to-epiglottis distance to assess difficult intubation in patients who undergo surgery under general anesthesia. Bali Journal of Anesthesiology. 2020;4(2):46–8.
Carsetti A, Sorbello M, Adrario E, Donati A, Falcetta S. Airway Ultrasound as Predictor of Difficult Direct Laryngoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2022;134(4):740–50.
Tavolara TE, Gurcan MN, Segal S, Niazi MKK. Identification of difficult to intubate patients from frontal face images using an ensemble of deep learning models. Comput Biol Med. 2021;136: 104737.
Hayasaka T, Kawano K, Kurihara K, Suzuki H, Nakane M, Kawamae K. Creation of an artificial intelligence model for intubation difficulty classification by deep learning (convolutional neural network) using face images: an observational study. J Intensive Care. 2021;9(1):38.
Iacovazzo C, de Bonis C, Sara R, Marra A, Buonanno P, Vargas M, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-1 as predictive factor of difficult laryngoscopy in patients with GH-producing pituitary adenoma: A pilot study. J Clin Neurosci. 2021;94:54–8.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This material is based upon work funded by Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. LQ21H180009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ZW, HC and JF contributed to the study design; ZW and YJ contributed to the data acquisition, analysis, and data interpretation; ZW and JS contributed to the article drafting; ZW, YJ, YZ, HC, JF, and JS contributed to revision of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Materials 1.
Supplementary Materials 2.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, Z., Jin, Y., Zheng, Y. et al. Evaluation of preoperative difficult airway prediction methods for adult patients without obvious airway abnormalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Anesthesiol 24, 242 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02627-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02627-1