MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797278214 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iry006.134

212 The Impact of Tracheostomy in Burns: An Institutional Experience

2018· article· en· W2797278214 on OpenAlexaff
Miliana Vojvodic, Pallav Bhatnagar, Taraneh Tofighi, Shahriar Shahrokhi, Robert Cartotto, Alan D. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBurn centerPneumoniaMechanical ventilationIntubationSubglottic stenosisPercutaneousSurgeryPopulationIncidence (geometry)AnesthesiaEmergency medicineAirwayPoison controlInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tracheostomy is routinely performed in the critical care setting to improve mechanical ventilation, reduce lung infections and facilitate bronchial hygiene. The role for prophylactic tracheostomy in burn patients is not well defined. There are no consensus guidelines supporting timing parameters or placement techniques in the burn population. The primary objective of this study is to describe our institution’s experience with the use of percutaneous and open tracheostomies and to define the demographics, clinical course, and outcomes of patients with a burn injury who have received a tracheostomy. A retrospective chart review of 95 patients who received a percutaneous or open tracheostomy at an adult regional American Burn Association-verified burn centre between 2006 to 2016 was performed. Data collected include patient demographics, burn injury patterns, tracheostomy parameters and outcomes, ventilation and sedative requirements pre- and post-tracheostomy, and incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia. Flame burns were the primary mechanism of injury for 86.2% of patients who received a tracheostomy with an average TBSA 30.8%. Thirty six percent of patients presented with ≥ grade 2 inhalational injury. The average number of intubation days pre-tracheostomy was 16.6 days. Percutaneous tracheostomies were done in 56.5% of cases. Post-tracheostomy complications include dysphagia (25.0%), dysphonia (8.7%), tracheal stenosis (2.2%), and site infection (1.1%). Forty-two percent of patients had at least one ventilator associated pneumonia following tracheostomy with pseudomonas (28.2%) and staphylococcus (21.9%) as the most commonly cultured organisms. No significant differences were found in the average P/F ratio, mean PEEP and mean FiO2 requirements after 24 hours following tracheostomy. No significant differences were found in opiate and benzodiazepine administration post tracheostomy. Average time to decannulation was 33.4 days. Percutaneous and open tracheostomies can be used as part of an effective ventilatory management algorithm for burn patients. This ten year retrospective case review offers insight into our institution’s experience with tracheostomies for improvement to current clinical practice protocols for ventilatory management of the burn patient.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207