Translaryngeal Tracheostomy: Experience of 340 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the authors' initial experience with a new and innovative dilational translaryngeal tracheostomy bedside technique. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective documentation of 340 patients who received an elective translaryngeal tracheostomy in a multidisciplinary, tertiary care intensive care unit during a 45-month period. RESULTS: All translaryngeal tracheostomy procedures but one were completed successfully; one was aborted because of bleeding from a thyroid vein. Minor perioperative complications occurred in 42% of patients, which caused no adverse effects. The most common complication was arterial desaturation occurring in 17% of patients; this was short-lived, and the lowest saturation was 79%. Blood loss was minimal (<5 mL) in all but one case, despite an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) and partial thromboplastin time in 42% and 41% of patients, respectively, and a low platelet count in 13% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Translaryngeal tracheostomy is a safe and reliable technique and can also be used in patients with unstable cervical spines and bleeding diathesis. It has become the authors' procedure of choice for an elective bedside tracheostomy in the intensive care unit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".