Tracheostomy in children: A population‐based experience over 17 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tracheostomy is a lifesaving intervention with numerous complications. OBJECTIVES: We describe the natural history of tracheostomy in children in a defined geographical area over a 17-year period. Our primary aim is to stress the need for a consensus on pediatric tracheostomy care. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed the charts of 72 children who had tracheostomy between January 1990 and January 2007. Indications for the procedure were divided into 3 groups: (1) upper airway obstruction at a well-defined anatomic site (32 patients); (2) upper airway obstruction with a complex medical condition (24 patients); and (3) need for an access to the lower airway for long-term ventilation and pulmonary care with normal airway anatomy (16 patients). RESULTS: The most common indication for tracheostomy was upper airway obstruction due to subglottic stenosis (15 patients, 21%) or as part of a complex craniofacial syndrome (15 patients, 21%). The duration of intubation prior to tracheostomy and the duration of hospitalization after tracheostomy varied markedly. Tracheocutaneous fistulae complicated 15 of the 38 (37%) decannulated patients. Tracheostomy infection occurred in 90% of the patients and tracheal granulation in 56%. Eleven (15%) deaths occurred, 10 were due to the underlying medical illness and 1 to a mucous plug. CONCLUSION: The complications of tracheostomy in children are substantial. Surveillance and prompt interventions are necessary to overcome life-threatening sequelae. A multidisciplinary (medical-surgical) approach provides better care for these highly vulnerable children. A consensus on pediatric tracheostomy care is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".