Thyromental distance ("Patil") revisited : Knowledge and performance of a basic airway screening tool among European anesthetists.

Predicting and managing the difficult airway is a lifesaving and vital basic task for the anesthetist. Current guidelines of all important societies include thyromental distance (TMD, "Patil") as a possible predictor for a difficult airway and includes two important aspects for airway management: the mandibular space and the flexibility of the cervical spine. We evaluated knowledge and execution regarding TMD for predicting a difficult airway on participants at the Euroanaesthesia (ESA) congress and German Anaesthesia Congress (DAC) in 2014. Our evaluation consisted of a theoretical part with questions regarding general knowledge and a practical evaluation with anesthetists performing on a human airway model. Practical evaluations were performed separately from other participants. During the DAC 245 (ESA 230) physicians participated, of which 64% were male (ESA 58%). At the DAC 182 (74.3%) and ESA 82 (35.6%) participants knew about Patil/TMD. Its use as a predictive score for a difficult airway was known by 122 (49.8%; DAC) and 79 (34.4%; ESA) participants. The correct definition for intubation was given by 45 (25.7%) at the DAC and 56 (24.3%) at ESA. Only 40-41% of the participants measured the correct distance for TMD. Only 6.1-6.5% completed both the theoretical and practical parts correctly. As non-invasive TMD includes two different aspects of patient airways and is part of current guidelines, education and training must be extended to assure adequate evaluation in the future.

Body packers on your examination table: How helpful are plain x-ray images? A definitive low-dose CT protocol as a diagnosis tool for body packers.

AIM: To analyze the clinical value and radiation dose of plain x-rays and CT in examining patients suspected of ingesting drug-filled packets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with suspected internal concealment of drug-filled packets who were examined with plain x-rays or CT or both were included in the study. CT studies were performed using low-dose and standard-dose techniques. All radiographic images were analysed by two radiologists regarding identification of the packets and estimating the effective radiation dose from standard- and low-dose CT versus conventional x-ray examinations. Descriptive calculations were made regarding the number and density of packs and radiation dosage. The diagnostic performance of both radiologists with standard- and low-dose CT was calculated by analysing differences in the mean number of packs found. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were positively identified as body packers with an average of 13 packs (min: n = 1, max: n = 58, total: n = 390); seven patients were not concealing drug packets. X-ray images were taken of 24 patients prior to CT, thus allowing a direct comparison between the two methods. The correct diagnosis was made in 42%, in 33% the radiologists were uncertain, and in 25% of drug packets were either not or wrongly identified. X-ray imaging had a positive predictive value of 20% with a negative predictive value of 81%. A total of 55 CT examinations were performed on all patients with a mean effective dose of 2 mSv (low dose) versus 9.3 mSv (standard dose). The visibility of packets on low-dose CT images compared to high-dose CT was not reduced: the radiologists identified 385 and 381 of the packets, respectively, with no difference regarding the examination technique (p = 0.24 and p = 0.253, respectively). The radiodensity of all drug-filled packets at CT ranged from 26-292 HU (mean 181.2 HU). CONCLUSION: X-ray imaging of supposed body packers leads to a significant risk of diagnostic errors and additional need for CT. Instead, a single abdominal low-dose CT examination will deliver the correct diagnoses in most cases, leading to safe clinical management of the suspects.