JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chou, H.-c.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, T.-l.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chou, H.-c.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, T.-l.

Anesth Analg 2003;96:1526-1527
© 2003 International Anesthesia Research Society


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Thyromental Distance and Anterior Larynx: Misconception and Misnomer?

Hsiu-chin Chou, MD, and Tzu-lang Wu, MD

Department of Anesthesia, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Hayward, California

To the Editor:

Even though several previous studies have questioned and challenged its relevancy as a predictor (1–5), thyromental distance (TMD) is still widely used in almost every airway study to date. In our view, TMD is a tenacious misconception that has contributed to the present confusion and frustration in understanding and predicting difficult intubation (6). For example, although El-Ganzouri et al. (7) did not discuss TMD directly in their 1996 multivariate risk index study, their data showed TMD correctly predicted only 7% of all difficult intubation cases (93% false negative). In a recent study by Brodsky et al. (8) on morbid obesity and tracheal intubation, TMD was found to be no different between easy and difficult (problematic) intubations. In one patient with failed direct laryngoscopy, the TMD was 14 cm long. A MacIntosh No. 4 blade revealed a Grade 3 view.

Taken together with previous literature (1–5) and findings presented in El-Ganzouri and Brodsky et al.’s studies (7,8), we suggest that TMD falls short as a useful predictor because measuring TMD is fundamentally an incorrect approach. Measurement of TMD originated as a quantitative assessment of "receding jaw," yet we have found no correlation between receding jaw and the mechanism of difficult laryngoscopy (9). We have previously shown that in patients with a caudally positioned larynx, the mandibulohyoid distance (MHD) is long and the tongue is largely contained in the hypopharynx, causing difficult ventilation, difficult intubation, or sleep apnea (10). Although MHD is measured vertically and TMD obliquely, patients who have a long MHD/caudal larynx/large hypopharyngeal tongue will also have a long TMD. These patients are candidates for difficult intubation, yet their long TMDs will indicate easy intubation. Such cases may account for the large false negatives associated with the use of TMD in prediction.

Another confusing concept is the "anterior larynx" often used to describe patients with difficult intubation. We believe the term "anterior larynx" is a misnomer. For instance, in a laryngoscopy Grade 3 patient, we may try with effort to lift up the tongue with the blade, yet only the epiglottis can be seen. At such time, the deeper, unreachable larynx appears situated "anterior" to the line of sight. Thus, while "anterior larynx" may describe the failure to bring the larynx into view, it obscures the real issue of a caudal larynx/large hypopharyngeal tongue that causes difficulties (2,10). Therefore, we propose "caudal larynx" to be the anatomically correct term to indicate the cause of difficult laryngoscopy.

Since the 1990 closed claims study (11), difficult airway management has become a top patient safety issue in clinical practice. After more than a decade’s effort, our specialty is now at a crossroads. Perhaps it is time for practitioners to think differently and examine new concepts and insights (2,9,10).

References

  1. Butler PJ, Dhara SS. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy: an assessment of thyromental distance and Mallampati predictive tests. Anaesth Intensive Care 1992; 20: 139–42.[ISI][Medline]
  2. Chou H-C, Wu T-L. Mandibulohyoid distance in difficult laryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth 1993; 71: 335–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Tse JC, Rimm EB, Hussain A. Predicting difficult endotracheal intubation in surgical patients scheduled for general anesthesia: a prospective blind study. Anesth Analg 1995; 81: 254–8.[Abstract]
  4. Jacobsen J, Jenson E, Waldau T, Poulsen TD. Preoperative evaluation of intubation conditions in patients scheduled for elective surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996; 40: 421–4.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Chou HC, Wu TL. Thyromental distance: shouldn’t we redefine its role in the prediction of difficult laryngoscopy? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1998; 42: 136–7.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Yentis SM. Editorial: Predicting difficult intubation: worthwhile exercise or pointless ritual? Anaesthesia 2002; 57: 105–9.[ISI][Medline]
  7. El-Ganzouri AR, McCarthy RJ, Tuman KJ, et al. Preoperative airway assessment: predictive value of a multivariate risk index. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 1197–204.[Abstract]
  8. Brodsky JB, Lemmens HJ, Brock-Utne JG, et al. Morbid obesity and tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 732–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Chou HC, Wu TL. Rethinking the three axes alignment theory for direct laryngoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001; 45: 261–2.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Chou HC, Wu TL. Large hypopharyngeal tongue: a shared anatomic abnormality for difficult mask ventilation, difficult intubation, and obstructive sleep apnea? Anesthesiology 2001; 94: 936–7.[ISI][Medline]
  11. Caplan RA, Posner KL, Ward RJ, Cheney FW. Adverse respiratory events in anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 1990; 72: 828–33.[ISI][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
E. R. Worth and J. L. Benumof
Haeckel's Recapitulation Theory Should Not Be Used as a Defense of the ASA Difficult Airway Algorithm * Response
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2004; 98(4): 1192 - 1192.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. L. Benumof, H.-c. Chou, and T.-l. Wu
Both a Large and Small Thyromental Distance Can Predict Difficult Intubation * Response
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2003; 97(5): 1543 - 1544.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chou, H.-c.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, T.-l.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chou, H.-c.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, T.-l.


Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press