Comparison of Complications in Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy versus Surgical Tracheostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy facilitates respiratory care and the process of weaning from mechanical ventilatory support. AIMS: To compare the complications found in percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) techniques. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized study to evaluate the complications of PDT and ST procedures in patients admitted to ICU unit of a teaching hospital during 2008 to 2011. We studied 40 patients in each group. PDTs were performed with blue rhino technique at the bedside by a skilled clinician and all cases of STs performed by Charles G Durbin technique in operating room under general anesthesia. Bronchoscopic examination through tracheostomy tube was performed to ensure the correct position of tracheostomy tube in the trachea lumen. The duration of procedures and pre- and post-interventional complications were recorded. RESULTS: The most common complications observed in the PDT group were minor bleeding (n=4), hypoxemia, and cardiac dysrhythmias (n=3) whereas in the ST group, the most frequent complications were minor bleeding (n=5) and endotracheal tube puncture (n=3). The difference in overall complications between the two groups was insignificant (P=0.12). CONCLUSION: PDT with blue rhino technique is a safe, quick, and effective method while the overall complications in both groups were comparable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".