Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Comparison of 2 Techniques of Tracheocutaneous Fistula Closure

Comparison of 2 Techniques of Tracheocutaneous Fistula Closure ImportanceTracheocutaneous fistula (TCF) can be repaired using various techniques. This research is an outcomes and health care use comparative analysis of 2 commonly used techniques to repair TCF. ObjectivesTo compare outcomes and health care use for 2 techniques of TCF repair. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRetrospective cohort study at a tertiary care children’s hospital. The study population comprised 50 consecutive patients aged 11 to 216 months who underwent surgical treatment for persistent TCF between January 2007 and August 2012. InterventionsTracheocutaneous fistula closure was achieved using excision of the TCF alone and healing by secondary intent or excision of the TCF plus primary closure over a drain. Main Outcomes and MeasuresDifferences in perioperative and postoperative outcomes. ResultsIn total, 30 patients underwent excision of a TCF plus primary closure over a drain (closure group), and 20 patients underwent excision of a TCF alone and healing by secondary intent (excision group). Statistically, the closure and excision groups were not significantly different regarding gestational age, age at tracheotomy, duration between decannulation and TCF repair, and duration of tracheostomy. The mean (SD) procedure durations were 9.7 (3.7) minutes for the excision group and 37.4 (25.1) minutes for the closure group (P < .001). The mean (SD) lengths of hospital stay were 0.3 (0.5) day for the excision group and 1.1 (0.9) days for the closure group (P = .001). The mean (SD) lengths of intensive care unit stay were 0.0 (0.0) day for the excision group and 1.0 (1.5) day for the closure group (P = .001). Closure success rates were 20 of 22 for the excision group and 30 of 30 for the closure group (P = .17). Complication rates were 0 of 22 for the excision group and 2 of 30 for the closure group (P = .50). Conclusions and RelevanceThe rates of success and complications were not significantly different between TCF closure and excision groups. Excision of a TCF alone with healing by secondary intent requires less operating room time and shorter hospital stay, which may suggest more efficient health care use. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery American Medical Association

Comparison of 2 Techniques of Tracheocutaneous Fistula Closure

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/comparison-of-2-techniques-of-tracheocutaneous-fistula-closure-L6nXgFRAHE

References (18)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
2168-6181
eISSN
2168-619X
DOI
10.1001/jamaoto.2013.6521
pmid
24481224
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ImportanceTracheocutaneous fistula (TCF) can be repaired using various techniques. This research is an outcomes and health care use comparative analysis of 2 commonly used techniques to repair TCF. ObjectivesTo compare outcomes and health care use for 2 techniques of TCF repair. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRetrospective cohort study at a tertiary care children’s hospital. The study population comprised 50 consecutive patients aged 11 to 216 months who underwent surgical treatment for persistent TCF between January 2007 and August 2012. InterventionsTracheocutaneous fistula closure was achieved using excision of the TCF alone and healing by secondary intent or excision of the TCF plus primary closure over a drain. Main Outcomes and MeasuresDifferences in perioperative and postoperative outcomes. ResultsIn total, 30 patients underwent excision of a TCF plus primary closure over a drain (closure group), and 20 patients underwent excision of a TCF alone and healing by secondary intent (excision group). Statistically, the closure and excision groups were not significantly different regarding gestational age, age at tracheotomy, duration between decannulation and TCF repair, and duration of tracheostomy. The mean (SD) procedure durations were 9.7 (3.7) minutes for the excision group and 37.4 (25.1) minutes for the closure group (P < .001). The mean (SD) lengths of hospital stay were 0.3 (0.5) day for the excision group and 1.1 (0.9) days for the closure group (P = .001). The mean (SD) lengths of intensive care unit stay were 0.0 (0.0) day for the excision group and 1.0 (1.5) day for the closure group (P = .001). Closure success rates were 20 of 22 for the excision group and 30 of 30 for the closure group (P = .17). Complication rates were 0 of 22 for the excision group and 2 of 30 for the closure group (P = .50). Conclusions and RelevanceThe rates of success and complications were not significantly different between TCF closure and excision groups. Excision of a TCF alone with healing by secondary intent requires less operating room time and shorter hospital stay, which may suggest more efficient health care use.

Journal

JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck SurgeryAmerican Medical Association

Published: Mar 1, 2014

There are no references for this article.