Meta‐Analysis Comparison of Open Versus Percutaneous Tracheostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Multiple studies have been performed to characterize differences in complications and cost-effectiveness of open and percutaneous tracheostomy; however, large enough studies have not been performed to determine a clearly superior method. Our primary objective was to compare complication rates of open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in prospective, randomized-controlled trials using meta-analysis methodology. Secondary objectives included cost-effectiveness and procedure length analyses. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: From 368 abstracts, 15 prospective, randomized-controlled trials involving nearly 1,000 patients were reviewed to extract basic demographic data in addition to complications, case length, and cost-effectiveness. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in addition to subgroup analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: Pooled OR revealed statistically significant results against percutaneous tracheostomy for the complication of decannulation/obstruction (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.29-6.03). There were significantly fewer complications in the percutaneous group with respect to wound infection (0.37, 0.22-0.62) and unfavorable scarring (0.44, 0.23-0.83). There was no statistically significant difference for complications of false passage (2.70, 0.89-8.22), minor hemorrhage (1.09, 0.61-1.97, P = .77), major hemorrhage (0.60, 0.28-1.26), subglottic stenosis (0.59, 0.27-1.29), death (0.70, 0.24-2.01), and overall complications (0.75, 0.56-1.00). However, the overall complications trended toward favoring the percutaneous technique. Percutaneous tracheostomy case length was shorter overall by 4.6 minutes, and costs were less by approximately $456 USD. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis illustrates there is no clear difference but a trend toward fewer complications in percutaneous techniques. Percutaneous tracheotomies are more cost-effective and provide greater feasibility in terms of bedside capability and nonsurgical operation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".