Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT: Background: The aim of this study was to assess the different methods of percutaneous tracheostomy in terms of successful performance of the tracheostomy as well as safety. Tracheostomy is the most common procedure performed on the airway for patients in ICUs. Lately, several methods of pe...

Full description

Autores:
Sanabria Quiroga, Álvaro Enrique
Tipo de recurso:
Review article
Fecha de publicación:
2014
Institución:
Universidad de Antioquia
Repositorio:
Repositorio UdeA
Idioma:
eng
OAI Identifier:
oai:bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co:10495/29760
Acceso en línea:
https://hdl.handle.net/10495/29760
Palabra clave:
Traqueostomía
Tracheostomy
Metaanálisis
Meta-Analysis
Cuidados Críticos
Critical Care
Cirugía General
General Surgery
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Rights
openAccess
License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
id UDEA2_eaa0a272883c7533f8fa7af95346305c
oai_identifier_str oai:bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co:10495/29760
network_acronym_str UDEA2
network_name_str Repositorio UdeA
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review
title Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review
spellingShingle Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review
Traqueostomía
Tracheostomy
Metaanálisis
Meta-Analysis
Cuidados Críticos
Critical Care
Cirugía General
General Surgery
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
title_short Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review
title_full Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review
title_sort Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review
dc.creator.fl_str_mv Sanabria Quiroga, Álvaro Enrique
dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv Sanabria Quiroga, Álvaro Enrique
dc.subject.decs.none.fl_str_mv Traqueostomía
Tracheostomy
Metaanálisis
Meta-Analysis
Cuidados Críticos
Critical Care
Cirugía General
General Surgery
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
topic Traqueostomía
Tracheostomy
Metaanálisis
Meta-Analysis
Cuidados Críticos
Critical Care
Cirugía General
General Surgery
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
description ABSTRACT: Background: The aim of this study was to assess the different methods of percutaneous tracheostomy in terms of successful performance of the tracheostomy as well as safety. Tracheostomy is the most common procedure performed on the airway for patients in ICUs. Lately, several methods of percutaneous tracheostomy (multiple dilator, progressive dilator, forceps dilation, screw-like dilation, balloon dilation, and translaryngeal) have been described, with theoretical advantages, but there is no consensus about which is better. Methods: A systematic review with critical appraisal of the literature was done. Literature in multiple databases was searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing different tracheostomy methods were selected. Clinical and methodological characteristics were assessed. A meta-analysis using fixed effect models was planned for statistically homogeneous outcomes. Results: Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included, most of them with small sample sizes and with comparisons of multiple methods. Blue Rhino methods were less difficult for surgeons (risk difference of 14.7% [95% CI 8-21.5]) and had more minor bleeding events (risk difference of -6.3% [95% CI -13.58 to 0.8]). There were no differences in major bleeding events. Statistically, heterogeneity and lack of data impede comparison with other outcomes. Conclusions: The Blue Rhino method is less difficult and has more minor bleeding events, but physicians also have more experience with this technique. However, trials are underpowered to define the best method.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2014
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2022-07-15T22:44:53Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2022-07-15T22:44:53Z
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coarversion.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.hasversion.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bc
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREV
dc.type.local.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo de revisión
format http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bc
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.citation.spa.fl_str_mv Sanabria A. Which percutaneous tracheostomy method is better? A systematic review. Respir Care. 2014 Nov;59(11):1660-70. doi: 10.4187/respcare.03050.
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv 0020-1324
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10495/29760
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv 10.4187/respcare.03050
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv 1943-3654
identifier_str_mv Sanabria A. Which percutaneous tracheostomy method is better? A systematic review. Respir Care. 2014 Nov;59(11):1660-70. doi: 10.4187/respcare.03050.
0020-1324
10.4187/respcare.03050
1943-3654
url https://hdl.handle.net/10495/29760
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartofjournalabbrev.spa.fl_str_mv Respir. Care.
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.uri.*.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.creativecommons.spa.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.format.extent.spa.fl_str_mv 10
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Lippincott
dc.publisher.group.spa.fl_str_mv Trauma y Cirugía
dc.publisher.place.spa.fl_str_mv Filadelfia, Estados Unidos
institution Universidad de Antioquia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstream/10495/29760/2/license_rdf
https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstream/10495/29760/3/license.txt
https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstream/10495/29760/1/SanabriaAlvaro_2014_WichPercutaneousTracheostomy.pdf
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv b88b088d9957e670ce3b3fbe2eedbc13
8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33
71adc341813eb1503a7cb8734cfecc4e
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Antioquia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv andres.perez@udea.edu.co
_version_ 1812173138994135040
spelling Sanabria Quiroga, Álvaro Enrique2022-07-15T22:44:53Z2022-07-15T22:44:53Z2014Sanabria A. Which percutaneous tracheostomy method is better? A systematic review. Respir Care. 2014 Nov;59(11):1660-70. doi: 10.4187/respcare.03050.0020-1324https://hdl.handle.net/10495/2976010.4187/respcare.030501943-3654ABSTRACT: Background: The aim of this study was to assess the different methods of percutaneous tracheostomy in terms of successful performance of the tracheostomy as well as safety. Tracheostomy is the most common procedure performed on the airway for patients in ICUs. Lately, several methods of percutaneous tracheostomy (multiple dilator, progressive dilator, forceps dilation, screw-like dilation, balloon dilation, and translaryngeal) have been described, with theoretical advantages, but there is no consensus about which is better. Methods: A systematic review with critical appraisal of the literature was done. Literature in multiple databases was searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing different tracheostomy methods were selected. Clinical and methodological characteristics were assessed. A meta-analysis using fixed effect models was planned for statistically homogeneous outcomes. Results: Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included, most of them with small sample sizes and with comparisons of multiple methods. Blue Rhino methods were less difficult for surgeons (risk difference of 14.7% [95% CI 8-21.5]) and had more minor bleeding events (risk difference of -6.3% [95% CI -13.58 to 0.8]). There were no differences in major bleeding events. Statistically, heterogeneity and lack of data impede comparison with other outcomes. Conclusions: The Blue Rhino method is less difficult and has more minor bleeding events, but physicians also have more experience with this technique. However, trials are underpowered to define the best method.COL001661210application/pdfengLippincottTrauma y CirugíaFiladelfia, Estados Unidosinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bchttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1https://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREVArtículo de revisiónhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic ReviewTraqueostomíaTracheostomyMetaanálisisMeta-AnalysisCuidados CríticosCritical CareCirugía GeneralGeneral SurgeryProcedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente InvasivosMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRespir. Care.Respiratory Care166016705911CC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8823https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstream/10495/29760/2/license_rdfb88b088d9957e670ce3b3fbe2eedbc13MD52LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-81748https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstream/10495/29760/3/license.txt8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33MD53ORIGINALSanabriaAlvaro_2014_WichPercutaneousTracheostomy.pdfSanabriaAlvaro_2014_WichPercutaneousTracheostomy.pdfArtículo de revisiónapplication/pdf388691https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstream/10495/29760/1/SanabriaAlvaro_2014_WichPercutaneousTracheostomy.pdf71adc341813eb1503a7cb8734cfecc4eMD5110495/29760oai:bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co:10495/297602022-07-15 17:44:54.483Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Antioquiaandres.perez@udea.edu.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