• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

经皮气管切开术:一种比标准开放性气管切开术更具成本效益的替代方法。

Percutaneous tracheostomy: a cost-effective alternative to standard open tracheostomy.

作者信息

McHenry C R, Raeburn C D, Lange R L, Priebe P P

机构信息

Department of Surgery, MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio 44109-1998, USA.

出版信息

Am Surg. 1997 Jul;63(7):646-51; discussion 651-2.

PMID:9202541
Abstract

Percutaneous tracheostomy was initiated as an alternative to open tracheostomy at our institution in December 1993. To assess safety, operative time, and cost, a comparative analysis of percutaneous and open tracheostomies was performed. A retrospective evaluation of all patients who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy (P) from December 1993 to March 1996 was completed. Patients were evaluated for indications for tracheostomy, length of operation, morbidity, and cost. The results were compared with patients who underwent open tracheostomy (O) during the 12 months prior to introduction of the percutaneous technique. Tracheostomy was performed percutaneously in 74 patients and by a standard open technique in 109 patients. Indications for tracheostomy included: chronic ventilator dependence (P, 49 vs O, 58); airway protection (P, 19 vs O, 42); laryngeal dysfunction (P, 2 vs O, 7); and facial trauma (P 6 vs O, 2). The length of operation was 21 +/- 6 minutes and 46 +/- 21 minutes for percutaneous and open tracheostomy, respectively (P < 0.05). Perioperative morbidity occurred in 2 patients (3%) following percutaneous tracheostomy compared to 10 patients (9%) following open tracheostomy (P > 0.05). The mean operating room costs per patient were $1093 and $1370 for percutaneous and open tracheostomy, respectively. Percutaneous tracheostomy is a safe procedure that can be performed in less time and at a lower cost than standard open tracheostomy.

摘要

1993年12月,我院开始采用经皮气管切开术作为开放性气管切开术的替代方法。为评估安全性、手术时间和成本,对经皮气管切开术和开放性气管切开术进行了对比分析。对1993年12月至1996年3月期间所有接受经皮气管切开术(P组)的患者进行了回顾性评估。评估患者的气管切开术指征、手术时长、发病率和成本。将结果与在经皮技术引入前12个月内接受开放性气管切开术(O组)的患者进行比较。74例患者接受了经皮气管切开术,109例患者接受了标准开放性气管切开术。气管切开术的指征包括:慢性呼吸机依赖(P组49例 vs O组58例);气道保护(P组19例 vs O组42例);喉功能障碍(P组2例 vs O组7例);以及面部创伤(P组6例 vs O组2例)。经皮气管切开术和开放性气管切开术的手术时长分别为21±6分钟和46±21分钟(P<0.05)。经皮气管切开术后2例患者(3%)发生围手术期并发症,而开放性气管切开术后有10例患者(9%)发生围手术期并发症(P>0.05)。经皮气管切开术和开放性气管切开术的每位患者平均手术室成本分别为1093美元和1370美元。经皮气管切开术是一种安全的手术,与标准开放性气管切开术相比,所需时间更短,成本更低。

相似文献

1
Percutaneous tracheostomy: a cost-effective alternative to standard open tracheostomy.经皮气管切开术:一种比标准开放性气管切开术更具成本效益的替代方法。
Am Surg. 1997 Jul;63(7):646-51; discussion 651-2.
2
Comparison of safety and cost of percutaneous versus surgical tracheostomy.经皮气管切开术与外科气管切开术的安全性及成本比较。
Am Surg. 2001 Jan;67(1):54-60.
3
Open versus percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy: efficacy and cost analysis.开放性与经皮扩张气管切开术:疗效与成本分析
Am Surg. 2001 Apr;67(4):297-301; discussion 301-2.
4
Bedside tracheostomy in the intensive care unit: a prospective randomized trial comparing open surgical tracheostomy with endoscopically guided percutaneous dilational tracheotomy.重症监护病房中的床边气管切开术:一项比较开放手术气管切开术与内镜引导下经皮扩张气管切开术的前瞻性随机试验。
Laryngoscope. 2001 Mar;111(3):494-500. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200103000-00021.
5
An analysis of time and staff utilization for open versus percutaneous tracheostomies.开放手术与经皮气管切开术的时间及人员利用情况分析。
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003 Jan;128(1):109-14. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2003.18.
6
The long-term complications of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy.经皮扩张气管切开术的远期并发症
Am Surg. 1998 Jan;64(1):82-6; discussion 86-7.
7
Comparison of open versus bedside percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in the cardiothoracic surgical patient: outcomes and financial analysis.心胸外科手术患者开放性与床旁经皮扩张气管切开术的比较:结果与财务分析
Ann Thorac Surg. 2005 Jun;79(6):1879-85. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.10.042.
8
Meta-analysis comparison of open versus percutaneous tracheostomy.开放性与经皮气管切开术的Meta分析比较
Laryngoscope. 2007 Mar;117(3):447-54. doi: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000251585.31778.c9.
9
Preferred route of tracheostomy--percutaneous versus open at the bedside: a randomized, prospective study in the surgical intensive care unit.气管切开术的首选途径——经皮穿刺与床边开放手术:外科重症监护病房的一项随机前瞻性研究
Am Surg. 1999 Feb;65(2):142-6.
10
Safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary percutaneous tracheostomy program.多学科经皮气管切开术项目的安全性、效率和成本效益。
Crit Care Med. 2012 Jun;40(6):1827-34. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824e16af.

引用本文的文献

1
Surgical versus percutaneous tracheostomy: an evidence-based approach.手术与经皮气管切开术:循证方法。
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011 Mar;268(3):323-30. doi: 10.1007/s00405-010-1398-5. Epub 2010 Oct 19.
2
Percutaneous tracheostomy: comparison of Ciaglia and Griggs techniques.经皮气管切开术:Ciaglia技术与Griggs技术的比较
Crit Care. 2000;4(2):124-8. doi: 10.1186/cc667. Epub 2000 Mar 3.
3
A single-center 8-year experience with percutaneous dilational tracheostomy.单中心8年经皮扩张气管切开术经验。
Ann Surg. 2000 May;231(5):701-9. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200005000-00010.
4
Elective bedside surgery in critically injured patients is safe and cost-effective.对重症受伤患者进行择期床边手术是安全且具有成本效益的。
Ann Surg. 1998 May;227(5):618-24; discussion 624-6. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199805000-00002.