OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical (SgT) and percutaneous (PcT) tracheostomies. BACKGROUND:Percutaneous tracheostomy has been said to provide numerous advantages over classical SgT. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial with a double-blind evaluation was used to compare SgT and PcT. SgT and PcT were performed according to established techniques (n = 70). The procedure was performed at the bedside in the intensive care unit in 21 cases (30%). The outcome measures were divided into procedure-related variables, perioperative complications, and postoperative complications. The procedure-related variables (location, duration, and difficulty) were evaluated by the surgeon. The perioperative and postoperative complications were divided into serious, intermediate, and minor. Perioperative and early postoperative (14 days) complications were evaluated daily by an intensive care unit nurse blinded to the technique used. Long-term postoperative complications were evaluated 3 months after decannulation by a surgeon blinded to the surgical technique. RESULTS: There were no major complications in either group. Most variables studied were not statistically different between the PcT and SgT groups. The only variables to reach statistical significance were the size of the incision (smaller with PcT, p < 0.0001), minor perioperative complications (greater with PcT, p = 0.02), and difficult cannula changes (greater with PcT; p < 0.05). Among nonsignificant differences, difficult procedures and false passages were more frequent with PcT, whereas long-term unesthetic scars were more frequent with SgT. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques are associated with a low rate of serious or intermediate complications when performed by experienced surgeons. There were more minor perioperative complications with PcT and more minor long term complications with SgT.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical (SgT) and percutaneous (PcT) tracheostomies. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous tracheostomy has been said to provide numerous advantages over classical SgT. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial with a double-blind evaluation was used to compare SgT and PcT. SgT and PcT were performed according to established techniques (n = 70). The procedure was performed at the bedside in the intensive care unit in 21 cases (30%). The outcome measures were divided into procedure-related variables, perioperative complications, and postoperative complications. The procedure-related variables (location, duration, and difficulty) were evaluated by the surgeon. The perioperative and postoperative complications were divided into serious, intermediate, and minor. Perioperative and early postoperative (14 days) complications were evaluated daily by an intensive care unit nurse blinded to the technique used. Long-term postoperative complications were evaluated 3 months after decannulation by a surgeon blinded to the surgical technique. RESULTS: There were no major complications in either group. Most variables studied were not statistically different between the PcT and SgT groups. The only variables to reach statistical significance were the size of the incision (smaller with PcT, p < 0.0001), minor perioperative complications (greater with PcT, p = 0.02), and difficult cannula changes (greater with PcT; p < 0.05). Among nonsignificant differences, difficult procedures and false passages were more frequent with PcT, whereas long-term unesthetic scars were more frequent with SgT. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques are associated with a low rate of serious or intermediate complications when performed by experienced surgeons. There were more minor perioperative complications with PcT and more minor long term complications with SgT.
Authors: Marc Remacle; Georges Lawson; Jacques Jamart; Catherine Trussart; Pierre Bulpa Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2008-04-12 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Laura H Rosenberger; Tjasa Hranjec; Matthew D McLeod; Amani D Politano; Christopher A Guidry; Stephen Davies; Robert G Sawyer Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Javier Romero Ganuza; Angel Garcia Forcada; Claudia Gambarrutta; Elena Diez De La Lastra Buigues; Victoria Eugenia Merlo Gonzalez; Fátima Paz Fuentes; Alejandro A Luciani Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2011 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: M Oberwalder; H Weis; H Nehoda; R Kafka-Ritsch; H Bonatti; R Prommegger; F Aigner; C Profanter Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.584