6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Airway Ultrasound as Predictor of Difficult Direct Laryngoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          BACKGROUND:

          Despite several clinical index tests that are currently applied for airway assessment, unpredicted difficult laryngoscopy may still represent a serious problem in anesthesia practice. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether preoperative airway ultrasound can predict difficult direct laryngoscopy in adult patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia.

          METHODS:

          We searched the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from their inception to December 2020. The population of interest included adults who required tracheal intubation for elective surgery under general anesthesia without clear anatomical abnormalities suggesting difficult laryngoscopy. A bivariate model has been used to assess the accuracy of each ultrasound index test to predict difficult direct laryngoscopy.

          RESULTS:

          Fifteen studies have been considered for quantitative analysis of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC). The sensitivity for distance from skin to epiglottis (DSE), distance from skin to hyoid bone (DSHB), and distance from skin to vocal cords (DSVC) was 0.82 (0.74–0.87), 0.71 (0.58–0.82), and 0.75 (0.62–0.84), respectively. The specificity for DSE, DSHB, and DSVC was 0.79 (0.70–0.87), 0.71 (0.57–0.82), and 0.72 (0.45–0.89), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for DSE, DSHB, DSVC, and ratio between the depth of the pre-epiglottic space and the distance from the epiglottis to the vocal cords (Pre-E/E-VC) was 0.87 (0.84–0.90), 0.77 (0.73–0.81), 0.78 (0.74–0.81), and 0.71 (0.67–0.75), respectively. Patients with difficult direct laryngoscopy have higher DSE, DSVC, and DSHB values than patients with easy laryngoscopy, with a mean difference of 0.38 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17–0.58 cm; P = .0004), 0.18 cm (95% CI, 0.01–0.35 cm; P = .04), and 0.23 cm (95% CI, 0.08–0.39 cm; P = .004), respectively.

          CONCLUSIONS:

          Our study demonstrates that airway ultrasound index tests are significantly different between patients with easy versus difficult direct laryngoscopy, and the DSE is the most studied index test in literature to predict difficult direct laryngoscopy. However, it is not currently possible to reach a definitive conclusion. Further studies are needed with better standardization of ultrasound assessment to limit all possible sources of heterogeneity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

          The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

            In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

              Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Anesth Analg
                Anesth Analg
                ANE
                Anesthesia and Analgesia
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkin (Hagerstown, MD )
                0003-2999
                1526-7598
                07 March 2022
                April 2022
                : 134
                : 4
                : 740-750
                Affiliations
                From the [* ]Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
                []Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy
                []Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Policlinico San Marco University HospitalCatania, Italy
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to Andrea Carsetti, MD, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Tronto 10/A, 60126 Ancona, Italy. Address e-mail to a.carsetti@ 123456univpm.it .
                Article
                00015
                10.1213/ANE.0000000000005839
                8903216
                34914641
                00881d50-f1d0-4417-9380-0ef360dd4eb2
                Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Anesthesia Research Society.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 22 September 2021
                Categories
                Review Articles
                Meta-Analysis
                15
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                Comments

                Comment on this article