Comparison of Elective Minimally Invasive with Conventional Surgical Tracheostomy in Adults

  • Rajiv Ranganath Sanji
  • Chandrakiran Channegowda
  • Sanjay B. Patil
Original Article

Abstract

Minimally invasive techniques were used for tracheostomy including small horizontal skin incision, limited soft tissue dissection and no suturing. A Retrospective analysis of case sheets of patients who underwent elective tracheostomy by the first and second authors at M S Ramaiah Hospitals in Bangalore between 1st May 2010 and 1st May 2015 was done to compare the result of elective conventional open surgical tracheostomy using midline vertical skin incision with minimally invasive tracheostomy using a short horizontal incision. No statistically significant difference in the peri and post operative complication rate was found. The patterns of intra and post operative complications reflected the choice of the surgical technique—the conventional technique had problems associated with wide dissection, whereas the minimally invasive technique had problems associated with limited exposure. Problems of wound gaping, emphysema and peristomal inflammation were reduced with minimally invasive technique with short horizontal skin incision although statistical difference could not be shown. There was also no statistically significant difference with either technique regards death and decannulation rates. Minimally invasive technique of elective open surgical tracheostomy was found to be as safe as conventional open surgical tracheostomy with midline vertical skin incision in the studied groups.

Keywords

Elective surgical tracheostomy Horizontal versus vertical incision Minimally invasive surgery 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Rajiv Ranganath Sanji, Chandrakiran Channegowda and Sanjay B. Patil authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Dash AK, Meher D, Patro S et al (2014) Benign thyroid lesions: small incision hemithyroidectomy is a cosmetic alternative. Natl J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2(11):21–22Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henry J (2008) Minimally invasive thyroid and parathyroid surgery is not a question of length of the incision. Langenbecks Arch Surg 393:621–626. doi: 10.1007/s00423-008-0406-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Terris DJ, Seybt MW (2008) Classification system for minimally invasive thyroid surgery. ORL 70:287–291. doi: 10.1159/000149830 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Consorti F, Milazzo F, Notarangelo M et al (2012) Factors influencing the length of the incision and the operating time for total thyroidectomy. BMC Surg 12:15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-12-15 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng K-H, Chen C-H, Ho C et al (2015) A fast method of surgical tracheostomy: a preliminary result of minimally invasive tracheostomy. Arch Clin Exp Surg 4:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldman RK (2000) Minimally invasive surgery. Bedside tracheostomy and gastrostomy. Crit Care Clin 16:113–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Putensen C, Theuerkauf N, Guenther U et al (2014) Percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy in critically ill adult patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care 18:544. doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0544-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Nalos M (2006) Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy versus surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 10:R55CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ravi Kumar A, Mohanty KS, Senthil MG (2005) Comparative study of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy and conventional tracheostomy in the intensive care unit. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 57:202–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El Solh AA, Jaafar W (2007) A comparative study of the complications of surgical tracheostomy in morbidly obese critically ill patients. Crit Care 11:R3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marullo L, Izzo G, Orsini A et al (2013) Clinical features as discriminating factors in the choice of tracheostomy techniques. BMC Surg 13:A28CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pelosi P, Severgnini P (2004) Tracheostomy must be individualized! Crit Care Lond 8:322–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pracy P (2008) Tracheostomy. In: Browning GG, Gleeson M, Burton MJ (eds) Scott brown’s otorhinolaryngology, Head and neck surgery, 7th Edn. Hodder Arnold, UK, pp 2295–2298Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bovie MJ, Afifi MS (2010) Tracheostomy procedure. In: CCNS DLM PhD, APN, FCCP DMSA MD, FCCM (eds) Tracheostomies: the complete guide, 1st edn. Springer Publishing Company, Berlin, pp 25–37Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dulguerov P, Gysin C, Perneger TV, Chevrolet J-C (1999) Percutaneous or surgical tracheostomy: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 27(8):1617–1625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dulguerov P, Gysin C (2000) Is surgical tracheostomy really superior to percutaneous tracheostomy? Crit Care Med 28:3370–3371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilyoma JM, Balumuka DD, Chalya PL (2011) Ten-year experiences with tracheostomy at a University teaching hospital in Northwestern Tanzania: a retrospective review of 214 cases. World J Emerg Surg 6:38CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajiv Ranganath Sanji
    • 1
  • Chandrakiran Channegowda
    • 1
  • Sanjay B. Patil
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ENTM S Ramaiah Medical CollegeBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations