Cargando…

Ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. A comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens

BACKGROUND: To compare the ultra percutaneous dilation tracheostomy (PDT) and mini open techniques (MOT) in randomized fixed and fresh cadavers. Assess degrees of damage to tracheal cartilage and mucosa via tracheal lumen and external dissection. METHOD: Comparative cadaver study was performed, trac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: AL-Qahtani, Khalid, Adamis, Jon, Tse, Jennifer, Harris, Jeffery, Islam, Tahera, Seikaly, Hadi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4467670/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26059328
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1199-4
_version_ 1782376399832612864
author AL-Qahtani, Khalid
Adamis, Jon
Tse, Jennifer
Harris, Jeffery
Islam, Tahera
Seikaly, Hadi
author_facet AL-Qahtani, Khalid
Adamis, Jon
Tse, Jennifer
Harris, Jeffery
Islam, Tahera
Seikaly, Hadi
author_sort AL-Qahtani, Khalid
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the ultra percutaneous dilation tracheostomy (PDT) and mini open techniques (MOT) in randomized fixed and fresh cadavers. Assess degrees of damage to tracheal cartilage and mucosa via tracheal lumen and external dissection. METHOD: Comparative cadaver study was performed, tracheostomy was placed in 36 cadavers (16 fixed, 20 fresh) from July 2004 to December 2004, in University of Alberta, Canada. PDT (size 7) were placed by intensivist and MOT (size 7) otolaryngologist. Both fixed and fresh cadavers were randomized. Evaluation was done according to gender, ease of landmark, mucosal and cartilage injuries. RESULTS: Significant differences in mucosal injury (7 of 9 in UPDT VS 0 of 7 in MOT, p value 0.008), and cartilage injury (8 of 9 in UPDT VS 1 of 7 in MOT p value 0.012) were seen in fixed cadavers; and in fresh cadavers, mucosal injury (5 of 10 in UPDT VS 0 of 10 in MOT, p value 0.043), and cartilage injury (5 of 10 in UPDT VS 0 of 10 in MOT, p value 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: PDT resulted in severe damage to mucosa and cartilage, that might contribute to subglottic stenosis preventing decannulation. Considering the injury, MOT has better outcome than UPDT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4467670
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44676702015-06-16 Ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. A comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens AL-Qahtani, Khalid Adamis, Jon Tse, Jennifer Harris, Jeffery Islam, Tahera Seikaly, Hadi BMC Res Notes Research Article BACKGROUND: To compare the ultra percutaneous dilation tracheostomy (PDT) and mini open techniques (MOT) in randomized fixed and fresh cadavers. Assess degrees of damage to tracheal cartilage and mucosa via tracheal lumen and external dissection. METHOD: Comparative cadaver study was performed, tracheostomy was placed in 36 cadavers (16 fixed, 20 fresh) from July 2004 to December 2004, in University of Alberta, Canada. PDT (size 7) were placed by intensivist and MOT (size 7) otolaryngologist. Both fixed and fresh cadavers were randomized. Evaluation was done according to gender, ease of landmark, mucosal and cartilage injuries. RESULTS: Significant differences in mucosal injury (7 of 9 in UPDT VS 0 of 7 in MOT, p value 0.008), and cartilage injury (8 of 9 in UPDT VS 1 of 7 in MOT p value 0.012) were seen in fixed cadavers; and in fresh cadavers, mucosal injury (5 of 10 in UPDT VS 0 of 10 in MOT, p value 0.043), and cartilage injury (5 of 10 in UPDT VS 0 of 10 in MOT, p value 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: PDT resulted in severe damage to mucosa and cartilage, that might contribute to subglottic stenosis preventing decannulation. Considering the injury, MOT has better outcome than UPDT. BioMed Central 2015-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4467670/ /pubmed/26059328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1199-4 Text en © AL-Qahtani et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
AL-Qahtani, Khalid
Adamis, Jon
Tse, Jennifer
Harris, Jeffery
Islam, Tahera
Seikaly, Hadi
Ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. A comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens
title Ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. A comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens
title_full Ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. A comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens
title_fullStr Ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. A comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens
title_full_unstemmed Ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. A comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens
title_short Ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. A comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens
title_sort ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. a comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4467670/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26059328
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1199-4
work_keys_str_mv AT alqahtanikhalid ultrapercutaneousdilationtracheotomyvsminiopentracheotomyacomparisonoftrachealdamageinfreshcadaverspecimens
AT adamisjon ultrapercutaneousdilationtracheotomyvsminiopentracheotomyacomparisonoftrachealdamageinfreshcadaverspecimens
AT tsejennifer ultrapercutaneousdilationtracheotomyvsminiopentracheotomyacomparisonoftrachealdamageinfreshcadaverspecimens
AT harrisjeffery ultrapercutaneousdilationtracheotomyvsminiopentracheotomyacomparisonoftrachealdamageinfreshcadaverspecimens
AT islamtahera ultrapercutaneousdilationtracheotomyvsminiopentracheotomyacomparisonoftrachealdamageinfreshcadaverspecimens
AT seikalyhadi ultrapercutaneousdilationtracheotomyvsminiopentracheotomyacomparisonoftrachealdamageinfreshcadaverspecimens