Suppr超能文献

在深部颈部间隙感染的气道管理中,气管切开术与气管插管的比较

Tracheotomy versus endotracheal intubation for airway management in deep neck space infections.

作者信息

Potter Jason K, Herford Alan S, Ellis Edward

机构信息

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9109, USA.

出版信息

J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Apr;60(4):349-54; discussion 354-5. doi: 10.1053/joms.2002.31218.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to compare costs and outcomes for patients with deep neck infections who were treated with either tracheotomy or endotracheal intubation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The charts of 85 patients with deep neck space infections were retrospectively studied. Requirements for inclusion in the study were incision and drainage in the operating room, involvement of more than 1 deep anatomic space, impending airway compromise, and maintenance of a postoperative artificial airway. The 85 patients were divided into 2 groups based on the type of airway used for treatment. Group 1 (n = 34) included patients who received a tracheotomy, and group 2 (n = 51) included patients whose airways were maintained with endotracheal intubation until the swelling had resolved sufficiently for extubation.

RESULTS

Patients in group 1 had a shorter overall hospital stay (4.8 vs 5.9 days, NS) and spent less time in the intensive care unit (1.1 vs 3.1 days, P <.05). The overall incidence of complications was 6% for group 1 and 10% for group 2. The rate of complications secondary to loss of airway was 3% for group 1 and 6% for group 2. Average costs associated with intensive care resources were 5 times greater and overall hospital stay costs were 60% greater for group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both methods of airway control are useful and have a unique set of complications, the use of tracheotomy allowed earlier movement to a noncritical care unit and was associated with fewer intensive care costs and less overall cost of hospitalization. Tracheotomy may therefore provide better utilization of critical care resources in this group of patients.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较接受气管切开术或气管插管治疗的深部颈部感染患者的成本和治疗结果。

材料与方法

回顾性研究85例深部颈部间隙感染患者的病历。纳入本研究的要求为在手术室进行切开引流、累及超过1个深部解剖间隙、即将出现气道受压情况以及术后维持人工气道。根据治疗所用气道类型将85例患者分为2组。第1组(n = 34)包括接受气管切开术的患者,第2组(n = 51)包括气道通过气管插管维持直至肿胀充分消退可进行拔管的患者。

结果

第1组患者的总住院时间较短(4.8天对5.9天,无显著差异),在重症监护病房的时间较少(1.1天对3.1天,P <.05)。第1组并发症的总发生率为6%,第2组为10%。气道丧失继发的并发症发生率第1组为3%,第2组为6%。第2组与重症监护资源相关的平均成本高出5倍,总住院成本高出60%。

结论

虽然两种气道控制方法都有用且有各自独特的并发症,但气管切开术可使患者更早转至非重症监护病房,且重症监护成本较低,住院总成本也较低。因此,气管切开术在这类患者中可能能更好地利用重症监护资源。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验