Criteria for tracheostomy decannulation: Literature review

32Citations
Citations of this article
220Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

decannulation. Research strategies: Literature review using the PubMed database with the English keywords "Tracheostomy", "Weaning", "Decannulation", "Removal Tube", "Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences", "Intensive Care Units", "Dysphagia", "Swallowing", "Deglutition" and "Deglutition Disorders ". Selection criteria: Studies published in the last five years (2012 to 2017); studies with human adult population (i.e. ages above 18 years); articles published in English; unrestricted full access articles; and research related to the objectives of the study. Data analysis: we analyzed sample characterization; professionals involved in the decannulation process; steps of the decannulation process; total time in days of tracheostomy use; total time in days to complete decannulation process; and failure factors to complete the decannulation process. Results: Most of the studies investigated tracheostomy decannulation in a sample of males with neurological impairments. The professionals involved in the decannulation process were doctors, speech therapists, physiotherapists and nurses. The most cited decannulation steps were: swallowing assessment; occlusion training; evaluation of air permeability; ability to manipulate secretion and exchange of cannula; cuff deflation and cough training; use of speech valve. Conclusion: Speech therapists are of great help during the decannulation process, since the assessment of swallowing was one of the decisive steps of the investigated studies. The processes of decannulation includes a multidisciplinary approach and should be performed by the cooperation between physicians, physiotherapists and speech therapists.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

de Medeiros, G. C., Sassi, F. C., Lirani-Silva, C., & de Andrade, C. R. F. (2019). Criteria for tracheostomy decannulation: Literature review. CODAS, 31(6). https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20192018228

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