5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Cormack–Lehane classification revisited

      , , , , ,  
      British Journal of Anaesthesia
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Cormack-Lehane (CL) classification is broadly used to describe laryngeal view during direct laryngoscopy. This classification, however, has been validated by only a few studies reporting inconclusive data concerning its reliability. This discrepancy between widespread use and limited evidence prompted us to investigate the knowledge about the classification among anaesthesiologists and its intra- and inter-observer reliability. One hundred and twenty interviews were performed at a major European anaesthesia congress. Participants were interviewed about their general knowledge on grading systems to classify laryngeal view during laryngoscopy and were subsequently asked to define the grades of the CL classification. Inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were tested in 20 anaesthesiologists well familiar with the CL classification, who performed 100 laryngoscopies in a full-scale patient simulator. Although 89% of interviewed subjects claimed to know a classification to describe laryngeal view during laryngoscopy, 53% were able to name a classification. When specifically asked about the CL classification, 74% of the interviewed subjects stated to know this classification, whereas 25% could define all four grades correctly. In the simulator-based part of the study, inter-observer reliability was fair with a kappa coefficient of 0.35 and intra-observer reliability was poor with a kappa of 0.15. The CL classification is poorly known in detail among anaesthesiologists and reproducibility even in subjects well familiar with this classification is limited.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          British Journal of Anaesthesia
          British Journal of Anaesthesia
          Oxford University Press (OUP)
          00070912
          August 2010
          August 2010
          : 105
          : 2
          : 220-227
          Article
          10.1093/bja/aeq136
          20554633
          863850c4-190a-4fae-9c77-f6e957bc6e4a
          © 2010

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article