Pediatric tracheostomy revisited: a nine-year experience using horizontal intercartilaginous incision.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To describe our tracheostomy procedure using a vertical skin incision and a horizontal intercartilaginous incision and to compare our postoperative results with those in the recent literature.

STUDY

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review and literature review.

METHODS

One hundred eleven children underwent tracheostomy using a vertical skin incision and a horizontal intercartilaginous incision over a 9-year period. A retrospective chart review was undertaken with respect to the following variables: demographics, weight, primary diagnosis, surgical indication, follow-up duration, decannulation, interval between tracheostomy and decannulation, and complications experienced. In addition, the outcomes were compared to results from a literature review.

RESULTS

Of the 111 patients, 56 had a history of prolonged intubation, 52 had upper airway obstruction, and three underwent tracheostomy for tracheobronchial toileting. Three (2.7%) patients experienced early major complications without major sequelae, and 14 (12.6%) experienced late major complications. Twenty-one (18.9%) patients were decannulated during the follow-up period, whereas 17 (17.8%) died of their primary disease or tracheostomy-related complications (15 died of their primary disease and two died of tracheostomy-related complications). The complication rates showed overall no differences, but our patient series showed significantly less stomal granulation tissue formation and non-significant trend for less suprastomal collapse as compared with previous literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric tracheostomy using a vertical skin incision and horizontal intercartilaginous incision is comparable with the conventional procedure in terms of complication and mortality rates. Future randomized controlled studies are mandatory to directly compare conventional tracheotomy using a vertical skin incision and a horizontal intercartilaginous incision with our procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.