Use of Fenestrated Tracheostomy Tubes: A Comparative Study

S. Lakshmanan, S. Jeyabalakrishnan, P. Saravanam
{"title":"Use of Fenestrated Tracheostomy Tubes: A Comparative Study","authors":"S. Lakshmanan, S. Jeyabalakrishnan, P. Saravanam","doi":"10.5005/JP-JOURNALS-10001-1419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ab s t r Ac t Introduction: Tracheostomy is commonly performed in patients requiring long-term ventilator support. There are many types of tracheostomy tubes like fenestrated and non-fenestrated tubes. This study is to compare the types of fenestrated tubes. Type I is a fenestrated tube with multiple small fenestrae and type II is a fenestrated tracheostomy tube with a single large fenestra. Materials and methods: A total of 87 patients who underwent tracheostomy due to prolonged ventilation from January 2015 to January 2016 were included in the study. Type I tube was used in 40 patients and type II tube was used in 47 patients. Tube change was done on the 10th day, at the end of 1 month, and at the end of 3 months. Flexible laryngoscopy is done during every tube change to assess the airway. Results: Two groups were compared in terms of granulation through fenestra, stomal granulation, frequency of suctioning, and inner tube block. Statistical analysis was done and the values were compared. A p value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. There was a statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of less incidence of granulation through the fenestra and stomal granulation in type II tube. Conclusion: Type II tubes are more patient compliant. The incidence of inner tube block is comparatively less which makes it safe to use and avoid life-threatening situations. Decannulation can be done earlier and without complications in patients with type II tubes due to the less incidence of stomal granulation. Thus, type II tube is safer to use and has minimal complications.","PeriodicalId":93302,"journal":{"name":"International journal of head and neck surgery","volume":"12 1","pages":"15-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of head and neck surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/JP-JOURNALS-10001-1419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ab s t r Ac t Introduction: Tracheostomy is commonly performed in patients requiring long-term ventilator support. There are many types of tracheostomy tubes like fenestrated and non-fenestrated tubes. This study is to compare the types of fenestrated tubes. Type I is a fenestrated tube with multiple small fenestrae and type II is a fenestrated tracheostomy tube with a single large fenestra. Materials and methods: A total of 87 patients who underwent tracheostomy due to prolonged ventilation from January 2015 to January 2016 were included in the study. Type I tube was used in 40 patients and type II tube was used in 47 patients. Tube change was done on the 10th day, at the end of 1 month, and at the end of 3 months. Flexible laryngoscopy is done during every tube change to assess the airway. Results: Two groups were compared in terms of granulation through fenestra, stomal granulation, frequency of suctioning, and inner tube block. Statistical analysis was done and the values were compared. A p value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. There was a statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of less incidence of granulation through the fenestra and stomal granulation in type II tube. Conclusion: Type II tubes are more patient compliant. The incidence of inner tube block is comparatively less which makes it safe to use and avoid life-threatening situations. Decannulation can be done earlier and without complications in patients with type II tubes due to the less incidence of stomal granulation. Thus, type II tube is safer to use and has minimal complications.
开窗气管造口管的应用比较研究
Ab s t r Ac t简介:气管造口术通常在需要长期呼吸机支持的患者中进行。有许多类型的气管造口管,如开窗管和非开窗管。本研究旨在比较开窗管的类型。I型是带有多个小开窗的开窗管,II型是带有单个大开窗的开窗气管造口管。材料和方法:2015年1月至2016年1月,共有87名患者因长期通气而接受了气管造口术。40例患者使用I型管,47例患者使用II型管。换管时间分别为第10天、第1个月底和第3个月底。在每次换管时都要进行柔性喉镜检查,以评估气道。结果:比较两组在开窗肉芽、造口肉芽、抽吸次数和内管堵塞方面的效果。进行了统计分析,并对数值进行了比较。p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。在II型管中,两组通过开窗肉芽和造口肉芽的发生率较低方面存在统计学上的显著差异。结论:II型导管更符合患者要求。内管堵塞的发生率相对较低,因此使用安全,避免了危及生命的情况。由于造口肉芽的发生率较低,II型管患者可以更早进行脱管,且不会出现并发症。因此,II型导管使用更安全,并发症也最小。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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