Efficacy of tracheostomy for respiratory management in patients with advanced oral cancer.

IF 2 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Yun-Ho Kim, Jae-Young Yang, Yoon-Hee Ma, Jin-Choon Lee, Dae-Seok Hwang, Mi-Heon Ryu, Uk-Kyu Kim
{"title":"Efficacy of tracheostomy for respiratory management in patients with advanced oral cancer.","authors":"Yun-Ho Kim, Jae-Young Yang, Yoon-Hee Ma, Jin-Choon Lee, Dae-Seok Hwang, Mi-Heon Ryu, Uk-Kyu Kim","doi":"10.1186/s40902-024-00439-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many studies have been reported on tracheostomy to prevent upper airway obstruction after surgery. Among these, the scoring system proposed by Cameron et al. quantifies various factors that influence postoperative respiratory failure. This system provides a basis for surgeons to decide whether to perform an elective tracheostomy. In this study, the authors applied the Cameron scoring system retrospectively to patients undergoing severe oral cancer surgery to reevaluate the indications for elective tracheostomy and to investigate its clinical efficacy in airway management. In this study, a sample of 20 patients who underwent oral cancer surgery was selected and divided into two groups: 10 underwent tracheostomy and 10 did not. The Cameron scoring scores for each patient were extracted, to verify whether elective tracheostomy was performed in accordance with the threshold scores. Differences in scores and significant clinical impact factors between the two groups were analyzed and compared.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>The 10 patients who underwent tracheostomy had an average Cameron score of 6.4, all scoring above the recommended threshold of 5 for tracheostomy. For the 10 patients who did not undergo tracheostomy, the average score was 2.5, with 8 out of these 10 patients scoring below 5. Significant clinical impact factors observed included the location and size of the tumor, the performance of mandibulectomy and neck dissection, and the type of reconstruction surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In planning surgery for oral cancer patients, it is essential to consider the use of elective tracheostomy based on preoperative assessment of the risk of postoperative airway obstruction using tools like the Cameron scoring system, and patients' condition. Research confirms that elective tracheostomy effectively enhances airway management in patients with severe oral cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":18357,"journal":{"name":"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11263324/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-024-00439-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many studies have been reported on tracheostomy to prevent upper airway obstruction after surgery. Among these, the scoring system proposed by Cameron et al. quantifies various factors that influence postoperative respiratory failure. This system provides a basis for surgeons to decide whether to perform an elective tracheostomy. In this study, the authors applied the Cameron scoring system retrospectively to patients undergoing severe oral cancer surgery to reevaluate the indications for elective tracheostomy and to investigate its clinical efficacy in airway management. In this study, a sample of 20 patients who underwent oral cancer surgery was selected and divided into two groups: 10 underwent tracheostomy and 10 did not. The Cameron scoring scores for each patient were extracted, to verify whether elective tracheostomy was performed in accordance with the threshold scores. Differences in scores and significant clinical impact factors between the two groups were analyzed and compared.

Result: The 10 patients who underwent tracheostomy had an average Cameron score of 6.4, all scoring above the recommended threshold of 5 for tracheostomy. For the 10 patients who did not undergo tracheostomy, the average score was 2.5, with 8 out of these 10 patients scoring below 5. Significant clinical impact factors observed included the location and size of the tumor, the performance of mandibulectomy and neck dissection, and the type of reconstruction surgery.

Conclusion: In planning surgery for oral cancer patients, it is essential to consider the use of elective tracheostomy based on preoperative assessment of the risk of postoperative airway obstruction using tools like the Cameron scoring system, and patients' condition. Research confirms that elective tracheostomy effectively enhances airway management in patients with severe oral cancer.

气管造口术对晚期口腔癌患者呼吸管理的疗效。
背景:有关气管切开术预防术后上呼吸道阻塞的研究报道很多。其中,Cameron 等人提出的评分系统量化了影响术后呼吸衰竭的各种因素。该系统为外科医生决定是否实施选择性气管切开术提供了依据。在本研究中,作者对接受严重口腔癌手术的患者回顾性地应用了卡梅伦评分系统,以重新评估选择性气管切开术的适应症,并研究其在气道管理中的临床疗效。在这项研究中,作者选取了 20 名接受口腔癌手术的患者作为样本,将其分为两组:10 名接受气管切开术,10 名未接受气管切开术。提取每位患者的卡梅伦评分,以验证是否根据阈值评分实施了选择性气管切开术。对两组患者的评分差异和重要临床影响因素进行了分析和比较:结果:接受气管切开术的 10 名患者的平均卡梅伦评分为 6.4 分,均高于建议的气管切开术阈值 5 分。10 名未接受气管切开术的患者的平均得分为 2.5 分,其中 8 人的得分低于 5 分。观察到的重要临床影响因素包括肿瘤的位置和大小、下颌骨切除术和颈部切除术的实施情况以及重建手术的类型:结论:在为口腔癌患者制定手术计划时,必须根据术前使用卡梅隆评分系统等工具对术后气道阻塞风险的评估以及患者的病情来考虑是否使用选择性气管切开术。研究证实,选择性气管切开术能有效加强严重口腔癌患者的气道管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
13 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信