Altun Demet, Ali Achmet, Koltka Kemalettin, Buget Mehmet, Çelik Mehmet, Doruk Can, Çamcı Ali Emre
Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, İstanbul University İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul-Turkey.
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery İstanbul University İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul-Turkey.
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2019 Jul;25(4):355-360. doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2019.65250.
The aim of this study was to investigate the success rates of ultrasound (US) and palpation methods in identifying the cricothyroid membrane (CTM), and compare the results with the gold standard method-computed tomography (CT) scan.
A total of 110 patients were included into the study. The midline was estimated by a single investigator using both the US and palpation methods from the prominence of the thyroid cartilage to the center of the sternal notch, and the distance was measured (in millimeters) between the two points: Point A (the midpoint of CTM) and Point B (the inferior process of thyroid cartilage). Furthermore, the distance between Point A and Point B was calculated using the CT images. Time taken to assess the CTM by using US and palpation methods were recorded. Moreover, difficulty in using the two methods was measured with the visual analog scale (VAS). In addition, demographic and morphometric characteristics of the patients were noted.
The CTM was detected accurately in 50 (45.5%) patients with palpation and 82 (74.5%) with US. In the Bland-Altman analysis, a better agreement was observed with US. The time to assess CTM was shorter with US than with palpation, p<0.001. The VAS scores for the palpation and US difficulty were 5.13+-1.1 and 3.32+-0.9 (p<0.001), respectively. While an increased neck circumference and thyromental distance were found to be independent risk factors for the success rates of determining the CTM by palpation, body mass index is an independent risk factor for US.
Localization of the CTM is more accurate and easier with US than palpation. Furthermore, the results gathered with US are in a closer range to CT scan.
本研究旨在调查超声(US)和触诊方法识别环甲膜(CTM)的成功率,并将结果与金标准方法——计算机断层扫描(CT)进行比较。
共纳入110例患者。由一名研究人员使用超声和触诊方法从甲状软骨突出处至胸骨切迹中心估计中线,并测量两点之间的距离(以毫米为单位):A点(CTM中点)和B点(甲状软骨下突)。此外,使用CT图像计算A点和B点之间的距离。记录使用超声和触诊方法评估CTM所需的时间。此外,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量两种方法的使用难度。另外,记录患者的人口统计学和形态学特征。
触诊法在50例(45.5%)患者中准确检测到CTM,超声法在82例(74.5%)患者中准确检测到CTM。在Bland-Altman分析中,超声法显示出更好的一致性。超声评估CTM的时间比触诊法短,p<0.001。触诊和超声难度的VAS评分分别为5.13±1.1和3.32±0.9(p<0.001)。虽然发现颈围和颏下距离增加是触诊确定CTM成功率的独立危险因素,但体重指数是超声法的独立危险因素。
与触诊相比,超声对CTM的定位更准确、更容易。此外,超声获得结果与CT扫描结果更接近。