Cross Sectional Observational Study Performed to See for Relation of Mallampati Score and Extended Mallampati Score with Body Mass Index

• Main Authors: Sasha Maria Menon, Shailaja Sampangiramaiah, Megha Mathew
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited 2017-05-01
• Series: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
• Subjects: modified mallampati test; neck circumference; obesity
• Online Access: https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/9865/23937_CE[Ra1]_F(DK)_PF1(SG_SS)_PFA(P)_PFA2(SS)_PF3(P_NESY).pdf
• ISSN: 2249-782X; 0973-709X

Introduction: There is increasing incidence of obesity worldwide. Since obese patients have an increased fatty tissue distributed in a truncal fashion, they may have an important and negative impact on the airway patency and respiratory function. Various scoring systems have been used to predict difficult airway, the most commonly used universal bedside tool is the Modified Mallampati Scoring (MMS). It was shown that the Extended Mallampati Score (EMS) predicted difficult laryngoscopy better than the MMS in the obese populations. Aim: To evaluate the association of Mallampati score and EMS in adults. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional prospective observational study was performed on 323 subjects. The selection method included convenience sampling technique. Patient data which included name, age, sex, weight, height, Body Mass Index (BMI) and Neck Circumference (NC), Mallampati Score, and EMS were collected by two observers, anaesthesiologists. The observers noted their findings of MMS and EMS on the same patient independently. Their findings were entered independently and disclosed only during analysis. Results: There was good agreement between the observers (kappa value 0.635) for MMS and EMS. The intraobserver correlation coefficient was 0.8 for MMS (p<0.001) and 0.7 (p=0.004) for EMS which was significant. A positive correlation between sex and NC with BMI, MMS and EMS was seen. Conclusion: From this study we concluded that there was no difference between the MMS and EMS. There was interobserver agreement between MMS and EMS and a positive correlation of body mass index with MMS and EMS was seen.