Challenge for management without tracheostomy tube after laryngo-tracheal separation in children with neurological disorders

1Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: The present study analyzed surgical outcomes of laryngotracheal separation (LTS) in children with neurological disorders. The purpose of this study was to investigate respiratory impairment and severe complications after LTS in children, and identify the possibility of permanent tracheostomy without a tracheostomy tube as the safest respiratory management method. Methods: Twenty-eight patients (male:female = 16:12) with neurological disorders (6 months to 32 years) who underwent LTS between January 2012 and April 2018 were reviewed. Tracheal diameter, Cobb angle, and sternocervical spine distance (SCD) were measured to assess the potential risk and possibility of removing tracheostomy tube management. Results: Tracheostomy tube could be removed shortly after LTS in 57% (16/28). However, nine of these patients developed respiratory problems that required tracheostomy tube placement 2 years after LTS. New requirements for a tracheostomy tube as a stent were strongly correlated with SCD (P 1) as well as tracheal deformity. Conclusions: Respiratory management in neurologically impaired children after LTS without a tracheostomy tube is challenging because thoracic deformity during physical growth affects tracheal disfiguration. Thoracic deformities and progression of scoliosis should be considered in respiratory management approaches in children with neurological disorders, and long-term follow-up by computed tomography is necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Morimoto, N., Maekawa, T., Kubota, M., Kitamura, M., Takahashi, N., & Kubota, M. (2021). Challenge for management without tracheostomy tube after laryngo-tracheal separation in children with neurological disorders. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 6(2), 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.534

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