Comparison between Real-Time Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy and Surgical Tracheostomy in critically ill Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Shin Young Kim, Seung Won Lee, Aerin Baek, Ki Nam Park
{"title":"Comparison between Real-Time Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy and Surgical Tracheostomy in critically ill Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Shin Young Kim, Seung Won Lee, Aerin Baek, Ki Nam Park","doi":"10.21053/ceo.2023.01088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Tracheostomy is an important procedure for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), and percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) has gained popularity due to its safety and effectiveness. However, there are limited data comparing ultrasound-guided PDT (US-PDT) with surgical tracheostomy (ST). In our previous study, we reported that US-PDT had similar safety and effectiveness to ST, with a shorter procedure time. However, the study design was retrospective, and the sample size was small. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of US-PDT compared to ST.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 70 patients who underwent either US-PDT (n=35) or ST (n=35) were enrolled in the study between October 20, 2020 and July 26, 2022. The patients were randomly assigned to their respective procedures. The data collected included patient clinical characteristics, procedure time and details, complications, duration of ICU stay, time taken for weaning from mechanical ventilation, and hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The procedure time of US-PDT was shorter than that of ST (4.0±2.2 minutes vs. 10.1±4.6 minutes). The incision length of US-PDT was also shorter than that of ST (1.5±0.5 cm vs. 1.8±0.4 cm). There were no statistically significant differences in demographics, procedure details, complications, length of ICU stay, ventilator weaning time, and hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>US-PDT has a similar complication rate and shorter procedure time compared with ST. It can be safely and effectively performed in critically ill patients and can serve as a potential alternative to ST.</p>","PeriodicalId":10318,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10710929/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2023.01088","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Tracheostomy is an important procedure for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), and percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) has gained popularity due to its safety and effectiveness. However, there are limited data comparing ultrasound-guided PDT (US-PDT) with surgical tracheostomy (ST). In our previous study, we reported that US-PDT had similar safety and effectiveness to ST, with a shorter procedure time. However, the study design was retrospective, and the sample size was small. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of US-PDT compared to ST.

Methods: A total of 70 patients who underwent either US-PDT (n=35) or ST (n=35) were enrolled in the study between October 20, 2020 and July 26, 2022. The patients were randomly assigned to their respective procedures. The data collected included patient clinical characteristics, procedure time and details, complications, duration of ICU stay, time taken for weaning from mechanical ventilation, and hospital mortality.

Results: The procedure time of US-PDT was shorter than that of ST (4.0±2.2 minutes vs. 10.1±4.6 minutes). The incision length of US-PDT was also shorter than that of ST (1.5±0.5 cm vs. 1.8±0.4 cm). There were no statistically significant differences in demographics, procedure details, complications, length of ICU stay, ventilator weaning time, and hospital mortality.

Conclusion: US-PDT has a similar complication rate and shorter procedure time compared with ST. It can be safely and effectively performed in critically ill patients and can serve as a potential alternative to ST.

实时超声引导下经皮扩张气管造口术与外科气管造口术在危重患者中的比较:一项随机对照试验。
目的:气管造口术是重症监护室(ICU)危重患者的一项重要手术,经皮扩张气管造口术(PDT)因其安全性和有效性而广受欢迎。然而,将超声引导PDT(US-PDT)与ST进行比较的数据有限。在我们之前的研究中,我们报道了US-PDT与ST具有相似的安全性和有效性,手术时间更短。然而,研究设计是回顾性的,样本量很小。因此,我们进行了一项随机对照试验,以证明US-PDT与ST相比的安全性和有效性。患者被随机分配到各自的手术中。收集的数据包括患者的临床特征、手术时间和细节、并发症、ICU住院时间、脱离机械通气所需的时间和医院死亡率。结果:US-PDT手术时间短于ST。(4.0±2.2分钟vs 10.1±4.6分钟)US-PDT的切口长度也短于ST(1.5±0.5 cm vs 1.8±0.4 cm)。在人口统计学、手术细节、并发症、ICU住院时间、脱离机械通气的时间和住院死亡率方面没有统计学上的显著差异。结论:与ST相比,US-PDT具有相似的并发症发生率和更短的手术时间。它可以在危重患者中安全有效地进行,是ST的潜在替代方案。
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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology (Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol, CEO) is an international peer-reviewed journal on recent developments in diagnosis and treatment of otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery and dedicated to the advancement of patient care in ear, nose, throat, head, and neck disorders. This journal publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic researches, reviews, and clinical trials, encompassing the whole topics of otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery. CEO was first issued in 2008 and this journal is published in English four times (the last day of February, May, August, and November) per year by the Korean Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. The Journal aims at publishing evidence-based, scientifically written articles from different disciplines of otorhinolaryngology field. The readership contains clinical/basic research into current practice in otorhinolaryngology, audiology, speech pathology, head and neck oncology, plastic and reconstructive surgery. The readers are otolaryngologists, head and neck surgeons and oncologists, audiologists, and speech pathologists.
×
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