Klemm E
HNO-Klinik, Städtisches Klinikum Dresden-Friedrichstadt.
Laryngorhinootologie. 1999 Feb;78(2):86-90. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-996837.
At present there is a discernible lack of consensus among different medical specialties regarding methods of tracheotomy in an intensive care setting. There is an obvious preference for percutaneous dilatational tracheotomy methods. Comparison of different methods are necessary to determine whether this trend is justified.
ENT and intensive care departments together performed 270 tracheotomies using different techniques in longtime-intubated adults over a period of 4 years. Severe complications were compared. Twenty conventional surgical tracheotomies were performed by using argon-plasma coagulation (APC).
Comparison of 2175 percutaneous and 3263 conventional surgical tracheotomies reveals a nearly identical rate of severe perioperative complications. Percutaneous methods are most frequently used in patients with initially uncomplicated conditions.
On the basis of our experience with 270 tracheotomies we have found there are clear indications for the various methods of tracheotomy. They depend on both the history of the disorder and its course and on the known contraindications to percutaneous tracheotomy methods. For safety reasons, we do not perform percutaneous tracheotomies on patients with severe brain damage who tend to aspirate and require prolonged neurological rehabilitation. Preoperative bleeding in percutaneous tracheostomies is the most important complication. It led to a life-threatening situation in 2.4% of our cases. Preoperative neck ultrasound may decrease the risks due to unusual anatomical conditions. Comparison of significant perioperative complications does not appear to favor any one method at present. In light of our effective cooperation with other specialties in planning and performing tracheotomies we do not feel that the current general preference for percutaneous methods in intensive care medicine is justified. Initial experience with APC shows promising results concerning its use in conventional tracheotomies. However, we noticed a shorter operation time, reduction of bleeding complications, and use of less suture material. The effectiveness of surgical intervention is improved by a number of factors.
目前,在重症监护环境下,不同医学专科对于气管切开术的方法缺乏明显的共识。人们明显更倾向于经皮扩张气管切开术。有必要对不同方法进行比较,以确定这种趋势是否合理。
耳鼻喉科和重症监护科在4年时间里,共同对长期插管的成年患者使用不同技术进行了270例气管切开术。比较了严重并发症。采用氩等离子体凝固术(APC)进行了20例传统外科气管切开术。
对2175例经皮气管切开术和3263例传统外科气管切开术的比较显示,围手术期严重并发症发生率几乎相同。经皮方法最常用于初始病情不复杂的患者。
基于我们270例气管切开术的经验,我们发现各种气管切开术方法都有明确的适应证。它们取决于疾病的病史、病程以及经皮气管切开术方法已知的禁忌证。出于安全考虑,我们不对有严重脑损伤且容易误吸并需要长期神经康复治疗的患者进行经皮气管切开术。经皮气管切开术中的术前出血是最重要的并发症。在我们的病例中,它导致了2.4%的患者出现危及生命的情况。术前颈部超声检查可能会降低因解剖结构异常而产生的风险。目前,围手术期严重并发症的比较似乎并不支持任何一种方法。鉴于我们在气管切开术的规划和实施中与其他专科的有效合作,我们认为目前重症监护医学中普遍倾向于经皮方法是不合理的。APC的初步经验显示了其在传统气管切开术中应用的良好前景。然而,我们注意到手术时间缩短、出血并发症减少以及缝合材料使用量减少。多种因素提高了手术干预的效果。