Unanticipated difficult endotracheal intubations are the most common cause of anesthesia-related morbidity and mortality [13, 14], and are a major source of concern for anesthesiologists. As a result, it is important to identify a clinical test that is quick and easy to perform during a preoperative evaluation in order to accurately predict potentially difficult endotracheal intubations with high sensitivity and specificity [15].
In a study by Prakash and Ravi, no test could be identified that reliably predicted the majority of difficult intubations with a low false-positive rate [16]. The incidence of difficult intubations in the present study was identified to be 9.38%. In accordance with our results, Iohom et al. [17] reported an incidence of difficult intubations of 9%. Domi [18] encountered a difficult endotracheal intubation in 40 out of 426 patients (9.38%). The incidence of difficult intubations varied in other studies from between 3.4 to 23% [19, 20]. Differences in reported incidences may have been due to the diversity of definitions for difficult intubations [2, 7] or differences in anatomical structures of the patients [4, 21]. The amount of clinical experience of the anesthetists who are performing the endotracheal intubations may also have played an important role in previous assessments of the difficulty of an endotracheal intubation.
The incidence of difficult laryngoscopies may be improved by use of the BURP maneuver. Even in pediatric patients and with usage of a glidescope, Hirabayashi et al. [22] found that the BURP maneuver provided better glottis views. In contrast, Lee et al. [23] used the Clarus Video System and found that the BURP maneuver actually worsened the laryngeal view compared with the conventional maneuver. They also found that the MCLG was improved with the modified jaw thrust maneuver compared with the conventional maneuver.
For predicting difficult intubations, the MPT is a well-established and relatively simple grading system [10]. Savva [24] reported that protrusion of the mandible was too insensitive for routine use, with a sensitivity of 29.4%, specificity of 85%, and PPV of 9.1%. In that study, no patients were classified as grade C.
On the other hand, Yildiz et al. [25] found the incidences of difficult intubations in patients with mandibular protrusion grades of B or C were significantly lower than in patients with MMT scores of III or IV, with a lower sensitivity than observed in our study (31% vs. 46.67%, respectively). That study identified a higher number of patients with grade C than we did (32 vs. 14, respectively).
When comparing MPT-related results from a study by UlHaq et al. with our results, a higher sensitivity (46.67% vs. 95.88%, respectively), PPV (70.56% vs. 50%, respectively), and AUC (0.781 vs. 0.922, respectively) were found by UlHaq et al. [10]. The reported specificity and accuracy, however, were similar to the values identified in our study. The differences in the reported findings may have been attributable to inter-observer variability, inability of some patients to protrude the lower incisors anterior to the upper incisors, the diversity of definitions of difficult intubation, and the use of different patient populations [24, 26, 27].
Previous studies reported various cut-off points for TMD that could predict a difficult airway for intubation. Honarmand et al. [28] reported a TMD of ≤ 7.1cm as a cut-off value for a difficult intubation. Badheka et al. [29] suggested 6 cm as the cut-off point for difficult intubations, and reported a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 70.59%, 68.63%, 84%, and 50%, respectively, using that value. In our study we considered a TMD of ≤ 6 cm as a predictor for difficult endotracheal intubations. We found a TMD sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and Youden's index of 46.67%, 88.97%, 30.43%, 94.16%, and 0.36, respectively. The AUC for TMD was 0.343 (CI 0.198–0.488). Differences in TMD-related findings could be explained by factors that might influence the measurement of TMD, including limitation of head extension, shortness and depth of the mandible, and the height of the larynx [28]. As a result, some authors have doubted the reliability of TMD as an isolated predictive test for difficult laryngoscopies and intubations [30,31]. On the other hand, Benumof [32] found that both a large and small TMDs could predict difficult intubations.
In our study, the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's index of 40%, 88.9%, and 0.29, respectively (PPV = 27.3, NPV = 93.5), for MMT-TP supports findings of Shiga et al. [33], whose meta-analysis was comprised of 41,193 patients. That meta-analysis identified an overall sensitivity and specificity for MMT-TP of 49% and 86%, respectively. Similar results were reported by Iohom et al. [17]. Our results differed from some studies that have reported a higher sensitivity [34, 35, 36], and from those of Hashim et al. [27], who evaluated five airway tests in 60 patients of both genders, and found a 23% sensitivity, 68% specificity, 58% accuracy, and 16% PPV of the Mallampati test, which were smaller in comparison to our study. The wide variations in the reported sensitivities and specificities of the MMT may be due to the considerable inter-observer variability found during this assessment, which related to the performance of the test with or without phonation, patient cooperation, or patient position [16,37].
In the present study, we performed the MMT-NTP in the supine position before the induction of anesthesia. We found an increase in the sensitivity (60%) using this technique; however, the PPV, specificity, and AUC were reduced in comparison to the results obtained using MMT-TP in the sitting position. On the other hand, the number of false-positives for MMT-NTP in the supine position was two times higher than those of MMT-TP in the sitting position (32 vs. 16, respectively). Contrary to our findings, Hanouz et al. [38] reported that supine performance of the MMT-TP for predicting difficult endotracheal intubation was superior to performance in the sitting position. Bindra et al. [39], however, found no significant changes in the diagnostic performance of the MMT-TP in the sitting or the supine positions. Khan et al. [35] demonstrated that the Mallampati test correctly depicts difficult intubations when the test is performed without phonation.
SMD is anatomically easy to measure and is commonly used in clinical practice [40].
Previous studies have reported different cut-off points for SMD, with consistent values ranging from 12.5 to 13.5 cm [3,6, 29]. In the present study, SMD values of ≤ 12 cm were considered to be predictors of difficult endotracheal intubations. In our study, SMD sensitivity was found to be 53.3%, specificity was 86.2%, PPV was 28.6%, NPV was 94.7%, and accuracy was 83.1%. These findings are consistent with the results of Palczynski et al. [40], who found a sensitivity of 60% and a PPV of 19% for SMD. A poor sensitivity and PPV for this test (8.3% and 3.4%, respectively) were observed by Khatiwada et al. [41] and, in a study by Shobha et al. [42], SMD sensitivity was found to be 3.3% and PPV was 6.25%.
Although repeatedly reported to be a good measure of head extension, previous studies have reported that the SMD has limited clinical value and fails to adequately and solely predict difficult intubations [33, 41, 42].
This study had several limitations, including its exclusion of pregnant women, obese patients with a BMI of ≥ 35 kg/m2, and emergency cases. Also, TMD and SMD were measured by different persons. Finally, we did not assess neck mobility or neck circumference, which might also be important factors in predicting difficult laryngoscopies.
In conclusion, we found an incidence of difficult intubations of 9.38%, with significant increases noted with increasing age. Ideally, any clinical test that is used for prediction of these difficult airways should be quick, simple, convenient, and practical. Unfortunately, there is still no individual test, or combination of tests, with 100% sensitivity (i.e., no false negatives) and 100% specificity (i.e., no false positives). While the Mallampati score is an established method for predicting difficult intubations, its relatively low sensitivity and specificity limit the practical value of the test.