Comprehensive Preoperative Airway Grading
Purpose of study: To contrast and compare the Mallampatti test to a comprehensive airway grading test using a rigid 75-degree angle laryngoscope (CPAG) Study Hypothesis: The investigators hypothesize that the CPAG will have greater sensitivity and specificity for predicting difficulty laryngoscopy as compared to the Mallampati test.
The investigators plan to test this hypothesis by comparing the correlation of (a) airway Mallampati airway grading (predicted airway difficulty) versus (b) CPAG view grading and Cormack Laryngoscopy assessment (observed airway difficulty).
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
The purpose of this study is to evaluate a comprehensive preoperative airway examination using a 75-degree rigid laryngoscope. (It is important to note that this laryngoscope is routinely used in the speech pathology clinic where patients are not required to provide a written consent because of the limited and non-invasive nature of the examination) The investigators plan to accomplish this by grading a person's airway using a laryngoscopy view and obtain pictures to describe a person's supraglottic airway. The investigators will use these measures to assist the anesthesiologists of the day of surgery with the approach of securing the airway (traditional laryngoscopy versus video-assisted laryngoscopy versus fiberoptic-guided laryngoscopy).
The traditional test and parameters for the assessment of the airway are: The Mallampatti test, the Wilson airway assessment, evaluation of the atlantooccipital joint extension (neck mobility), the thyro-mental distance, the sterno-mental distance, mandibulo-hyoid distance, inter-incisor distance (mouth opening). Other investigators have proposed the use of radiographic assessment methods. These traditional tests are limited by the inability to visualize the posterior pharynx, tongue base, and glottis. Difficulty in intubation can be classified according to the view obtained during direct laryngoscopy into 4 grades. These four grades of laryngoscopic views were defined by Cormack and Lehane. At the present time, no single airway test can provide a high index of sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of a difficult airway. Therefore, it is common practice to use a combination of multiple tests and accept that there is still ambiguity when predicting airway challenges and the best approach to securing an airway.
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Shanna Graves
- Phone Number: 205-975-2845
- Email: shannagraves@uabmc.edu
Study Locations
-
-
Alabama
-
Birmingham, Alabama, United States, 35578
- Shanna Graves
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Male or Female
- 18+
- ASA status 1-4
Exclusion Criteria:
- <18
- patients unwilling to do the comprehensive airway examination
- patients unable to do the comprehensive airway examination
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
- Allocation: N/A
- Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Study Group
Participants will undergo a endoscopic airway assessment in addition to the airway classification using the Mallampati score.
|
Endoscopic airway grading using a rigid 75-degree angle laryngoscope.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Participants comparison of grading scores on the traditional procedure verses the comprehensive airway grading
Time Frame: Preoperatively
|
Cormack-Lehane system- Grading I-IV looking at the Vocal Cords and Epiglottis (1 is less restricted visibility, 4 is most restricted visibility)
|
Preoperatively
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Michael Froelich, MD, MS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- IRB-300004915
- UAB (Other Identifier: UAB)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.