J Benatar-Haserfaty1, M Picón-Molina2, D A Meléndez-Salinas3, C Palacios-López3. 1. Servicio de Anestesiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, España. Electronic address: jbenatar@telefonica.net. 2. Servicio de Cirugía Maxilofacial, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, España. 3. Servicio de Anestesiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, España.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze the results of applying the predictive score (PS) of Cameron to perform elective tracheostomy (ET) in oral tumor surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective and descriptive study was conducted on consecutive patients undergoing oral tumor surgery between January 2010 and December 2012. Items of the PS were collected: reconstruction and type of graft, mandibulectomy, bilateral neck dissection, and tumor location. Patients were grouped according to the management of the airway at the end of surgery into 4 groups: extubated, intubated, ET, and urgent tracheostomy. A cutoff of≥5 points PS was considered for conducting ET. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were included. Group distribution was: extubated=27.8%, intubated=17.8%, ET=53.3%, and one case (1.1%) of urgent tracheostomy. Using the cutoff value of PS≥5 points yielded a diagnostic sensitivity value of 0.7 for a 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.57 to 0.82), and a diagnostic specificity value of 0.9 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99). The PPV was 0.9 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99) and the NPV was 0.67 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.8). The AUC gave a value of 0.87 (standard error 0.36). The likelihood ratio was 6.48. CONCLUSION: The decision to perform an ET for oral tumor surgery can be enhanced using the PS of Cameron based on objective data.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze the results of applying the predictive score (PS) of Cameron to perform elective tracheostomy (ET) in oral tumor surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective and descriptive study was conducted on consecutive patients undergoing oral tumor surgery between January 2010 and December 2012. Items of the PS were collected: reconstruction and type of graft, mandibulectomy, bilateral neck dissection, and tumor location. Patients were grouped according to the management of the airway at the end of surgery into 4 groups: extubated, intubated, ET, and urgent tracheostomy. A cutoff of≥5 points PS was considered for conducting ET. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were included. Group distribution was: extubated=27.8%, intubated=17.8%, ET=53.3%, and one case (1.1%) of urgent tracheostomy. Using the cutoff value of PS≥5 points yielded a diagnostic sensitivity value of 0.7 for a 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.57 to 0.82), and a diagnostic specificity value of 0.9 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99). The PPV was 0.9 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99) and the NPV was 0.67 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.8). The AUC gave a value of 0.87 (standard error 0.36). The likelihood ratio was 6.48. CONCLUSION: The decision to perform an ET for oral tumor surgery can be enhanced using the PS of Cameron based on objective data.
Keywords:
Airway management; Complicaciones; Complications; Cáncer de cabeza y cuello; Endotracheal extubation; Extubación; Head and neck cancer; Manejo de la vía aérea; Score; Tracheostomy; Traqueostomía