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

4Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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.

Figures

  • Table 1 Confounders in fresh cadaver and fixed cadavers
  • Table 2 Fresh and fixed cadavers injury analysis

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Get full text

Tracheotomy

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Al-Qahtani, K., Adamis, J., Tse, J., Harris, J., Islam, T., & Seikaly, H. (2015). Ultra percutaneous dilation tracheotomy vs mini open tracheotomy. A comparison of tracheal damage in fresh cadaver specimens. BMC Research Notes, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1199-4

Readers over time

‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2402468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 8

80%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

10%

Researcher 1

10%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 8

73%

Neuroscience 1

9%

Engineering 1

9%

Psychology 1

9%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0