口腔癌手术患者围手术期气道和通气管理的临床效果:一项前瞻性观察研究。

IF 0.9 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Souvik Mukherjee, Anuj Jain, Seema S, Vaishali Waindeskar
{"title":"口腔癌手术患者围手术期气道和通气管理的临床效果:一项前瞻性观察研究。","authors":"Souvik Mukherjee, Anuj Jain, Seema S, Vaishali Waindeskar","doi":"10.5125/jkaoms.2024.50.3.146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This prospective observational study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of perioperative airway and ventilatory management in patients undergoing surgery for oral cavity cancer. The study described the frequencies and types of procedures for securing the airway and the duration and types of postoperative ventilatory support. We compared the findings with those of the TRACHY study.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>One hundred patients undergoing oral cavity oncological surgeries were included. Airway assessment included inter-incisor gap, Mallampati class, neck movements, and radiological features. Surgical parameters, postoperative ventilatory support, and complications were documented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The buccal mucosa was the most common cancer site (48.0%), and direct laryngoscopy was deemed difficult in 58.0% of patients. Awake fibreoptic intubation or elective tracheostomy was required in 43.0% of cases. Thirty-three patients were extubated on the table, and 34 patients were successfully managed with a delayed extubation strategy. In comparison with the TRACHY study, variations were observed in demographic parameters, tumour characteristics, and surgical interventions. Our mean TRACHY score was 1.38, and only five patients had a score ≥4. Prophylactic tracheostomy was performed in 2.0% of cases, in contrast to the TRACHY study in which 42.0% of patients underwent the procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study emphasizes the challenges in airway management for oral cavity cancer surgery. While prophylactic tracheostomy may be necessary in specific cases, individualized approaches, including delayed extubation, are preferrable to maximize safety. Our findings contribute to better understanding and managing perioperative challenges in oral cancer patients and highlight the need for personalized strategies. Scoring systems like TRACHY should not be accepted as universally applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":51711,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11217693/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical outcome of perioperative airway and ventilatory management in patients undergoing surgery for oral cavity cancer: a prospective observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Souvik Mukherjee, Anuj Jain, Seema S, Vaishali Waindeskar\",\"doi\":\"10.5125/jkaoms.2024.50.3.146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This prospective observational study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of perioperative airway and ventilatory management in patients undergoing surgery for oral cavity cancer. The study described the frequencies and types of procedures for securing the airway and the duration and types of postoperative ventilatory support. We compared the findings with those of the TRACHY study.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>One hundred patients undergoing oral cavity oncological surgeries were included. Airway assessment included inter-incisor gap, Mallampati class, neck movements, and radiological features. Surgical parameters, postoperative ventilatory support, and complications were documented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The buccal mucosa was the most common cancer site (48.0%), and direct laryngoscopy was deemed difficult in 58.0% of patients. Awake fibreoptic intubation or elective tracheostomy was required in 43.0% of cases. Thirty-three patients were extubated on the table, and 34 patients were successfully managed with a delayed extubation strategy. In comparison with the TRACHY study, variations were observed in demographic parameters, tumour characteristics, and surgical interventions. Our mean TRACHY score was 1.38, and only five patients had a score ≥4. Prophylactic tracheostomy was performed in 2.0% of cases, in contrast to the TRACHY study in which 42.0% of patients underwent the procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study emphasizes the challenges in airway management for oral cavity cancer surgery. While prophylactic tracheostomy may be necessary in specific cases, individualized approaches, including delayed extubation, are preferrable to maximize safety. Our findings contribute to better understanding and managing perioperative challenges in oral cancer patients and highlight the need for personalized strategies. Scoring systems like TRACHY should not be accepted as universally applicable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51711,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11217693/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2024.50.3.146\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2024.50.3.146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的这项前瞻性观察研究旨在评估口腔癌手术患者围手术期气道和通气管理的临床效果。研究描述了固定气道的频率和程序类型,以及术后通气支持的持续时间和类型。我们将研究结果与 TRACHY 研究结果进行了比较:研究纳入了 100 名接受口腔肿瘤手术的患者。气道评估包括牙间隙、Mallampati 分级、颈部运动和放射学特征。记录手术参数、术后通气支持和并发症:颊粘膜是最常见的癌症部位(48.0%),58.0%的患者认为直接喉镜检查有困难。43.0%的病例需要进行清醒纤支镜插管或选择性气管切开术。33 名患者在手术台上拔管,34 名患者采用延迟拔管策略成功拔管。与TRACHY研究相比,我们观察到了人口统计学参数、肿瘤特征和手术干预方面的差异。我们的平均 TRACHY 评分为 1.38 分,只有 5 名患者的评分≥4 分。2.0%的病例进行了预防性气管造口术,而在TRACHY研究中,42.0%的患者进行了预防性气管造口术:该研究强调了口腔癌手术气道管理方面的挑战。虽然预防性气管切开术在特定病例中可能是必要的,但为了最大限度地提高安全性,包括延迟拔管在内的个体化方法更可取。我们的研究结果有助于更好地理解和管理口腔癌患者围手术期面临的挑战,并强调了个性化策略的必要性。像 TRACHY 这样的评分系统不应被视为普遍适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical outcome of perioperative airway and ventilatory management in patients undergoing surgery for oral cavity cancer: a prospective observational study.

Objectives: This prospective observational study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of perioperative airway and ventilatory management in patients undergoing surgery for oral cavity cancer. The study described the frequencies and types of procedures for securing the airway and the duration and types of postoperative ventilatory support. We compared the findings with those of the TRACHY study.

Patients and methods: One hundred patients undergoing oral cavity oncological surgeries were included. Airway assessment included inter-incisor gap, Mallampati class, neck movements, and radiological features. Surgical parameters, postoperative ventilatory support, and complications were documented.

Results: The buccal mucosa was the most common cancer site (48.0%), and direct laryngoscopy was deemed difficult in 58.0% of patients. Awake fibreoptic intubation or elective tracheostomy was required in 43.0% of cases. Thirty-three patients were extubated on the table, and 34 patients were successfully managed with a delayed extubation strategy. In comparison with the TRACHY study, variations were observed in demographic parameters, tumour characteristics, and surgical interventions. Our mean TRACHY score was 1.38, and only five patients had a score ≥4. Prophylactic tracheostomy was performed in 2.0% of cases, in contrast to the TRACHY study in which 42.0% of patients underwent the procedure.

Conclusion: The study emphasizes the challenges in airway management for oral cavity cancer surgery. While prophylactic tracheostomy may be necessary in specific cases, individualized approaches, including delayed extubation, are preferrable to maximize safety. Our findings contribute to better understanding and managing perioperative challenges in oral cancer patients and highlight the need for personalized strategies. Scoring systems like TRACHY should not be accepted as universally applicable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg) is the official journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. This bimonthly journal offers high-quality original articles, case series study, case reports, collective or current reviews, technical notes, brief communications or correspondences, and others related to regenerative medicine, dentoalveolar surgery, dental implant surgery, head and neck cancer, aesthetic facial surgery/orthognathic surgery, facial injuries, temporomandibular joint disorders, orofacial disease, and oral pathology. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg is of interest to oral and maxillofacial surgeons and dental practitioners as well as others who are interested in these fields.
×
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