Complications of midline-open tracheotomy in adults

26Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis: Percutaneous tracheotomy is progressively replacing open tracheotomy as a consequence of promising results of comparative studies. However, this comparison has four considerable weaknesses: 1) selected indications (high-risk patients excluded for percutaneous tracheotomy); 2) varying spectra of complications included in different studies; 3) varying operative settings (experienced surgeons exclusively, surgeons in training, or both); and 4) missing differentiation between different surgical techniques. Our study was performed to collect complete datasets of unselected patients who all underwent a tracheotomy in a uniform technique in an academic teaching hospital setting. Methods: Retrospective evaluation of all complications following 303 consecutive surgical tracheotomies (midline-open technique) performed by different surgeons and surgeons in training at one academic institution. Complications were classified and compared to results in the literature. Results: Rates of 21.5% minor and 1.0% major complications and 0% tracheotomy-related mortality were registered. The most prevalent complications were local wound infections (10.9%), intra- and postoperative hemorrhages (4.2%), and cartilage damage (1.7%). No significant difference was found for highrisk patients and emergency tracheotomies. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that open tracheotomy is a safe procedure, particularly if performed in high-risk patients even by inexperienced surgeons. Therefore, we emphasize the advantages of the midline-open tracheotomy in an academic teaching hospital setting. © 2009 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Straetmans, J., Schlöndorff, G., Herzhoff, G., Windfuhr, J. P., & Kremer, B. (2010). Complications of midline-open tracheotomy in adults. Laryngoscope, 120(1), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.20703

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free