Leder Steven B, Joe John K, Ross Douglas A, Coelho Daniel H, Mendes Joseph
Department of Surgery, Section of Otolaryngology, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208041, New Haven, CT 06520-8041, USA.
Head Neck. 2005 Sep;27(9):757-61. doi: 10.1002/hed.20239.
We sought to investigate the effects, if any, that the presence of a tracheotomy tube has on aspiration status in early, postsurgical head and neck cancer patients.
Twenty-two consecutive adult, postoperative head and neck cancer patients were prospectively evaluated with fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) under three conditions: (1) tracheotomy tube present, (2) tracheotomy tube removed and tracheostoma covered with gauze sponge; and (3) tracheotomy tube removed and tracheostoma left open and uncovered. For each condition, the endoscope was first inserted transnasally to determine aspiration status during FEES and then inserted through the tracheostoma to corroborate aspiration status by examining the distal trachea inferiorly to the carina. Three experienced examiners determined aspiration status under each condition and endoscope placement.
There was 100% agreement on aspiration status between FEES results and endoscopic examination through the tracheostoma. Specifically, 13 of 22 patients (59%) swallowed successfully and nine of 22 (41%) aspirated. There was also 100% agreement on aspiration status for tracheotomy tube present, decannulation and tracheostoma covered by gauze sponge, and decannulation and tracheostoma left open and uncovered.
Neither presence of a tracheotomy tube nor decannulation affected aspiration status in early, postsurgical head and neck cancer patients. The clinical impressions that a tracheotomy or tracheotomy tube increases aspiration risk or that decannulation results in improved swallowing function are not supported. Rather, need for a tracheotomy indicates comorbidities (eg, respiratory failure, trauma, stroke, advanced age, reduced functional reserve, and medications used to treat the critically ill) that by themselves predispose patients for dysphagia and aspiration.
我们试图研究气管切开管的存在对早期头颈癌术后患者误吸状态的影响(如果有影响的话)。
连续22例成年头颈癌术后患者在三种情况下接受了纤维内镜吞咽功能评估(FEES):(1)保留气管切开管;(2)拔除气管切开管,气管造口用纱布海绵覆盖;(3)拔除气管切开管,气管造口敞开未覆盖。对于每种情况,首先经鼻插入内镜以确定FEES期间的误吸状态,然后通过气管造口插入内镜,通过检查隆突下方的远端气管来证实误吸状态。三名经验丰富的检查人员确定每种情况下的误吸状态和内镜放置情况。
FEES结果与通过气管造口的内镜检查在误吸状态方面的一致性为100%。具体而言,22例患者中有13例(59%)吞咽成功,22例中有9例(41%)发生误吸。对于保留气管切开管、拔管且气管造口用纱布海绵覆盖、拔管且气管造口敞开未覆盖这三种情况,误吸状态的一致性也为100%。
气管切开管的存在或拔管均不影响早期头颈癌术后患者的误吸状态。气管切开或气管切开管会增加误吸风险,或者拔管会改善吞咽功能的临床印象未得到支持。相反,气管切开的必要性表明存在合并症(如呼吸衰竭、创伤、中风、高龄、功能储备降低以及用于治疗危重症的药物),这些合并症本身就使患者易发生吞咽困难和误吸。