A Retrospective Review of 589 Percutaneous Tracheostomies in a Canadian Community Teaching Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to review the complication rate of percutaneous tracheostomies performed by a single surgeon in a community teaching hospital. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed the patients who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy with bronchoscopic guidance in a community hospital setting between 2009 and 2017. Patients older than the age of 18 requiring percutaneous tracheostomy were chosen for this retrospective study. Patients who were medically unstable, had no palpable neck landmarks, and inadequate neck extension were excluded. Indications for percutaneous tracheostomy included patients who had failed to wean from mechanical ventilation, required pulmonary toileting, or in whom airway protection was required. RESULTS: Of the 600 patients who received percutaneous tracheostomy, 589 patients were included in the study. Intraoperative complication (2.6%) and postoperative complication rates (11.4%) compared similarly to literature reported rates. The most common intraoperative complications were bleeding, technical difficulties, and accidental extubation. Bleeding, tube obstruction, and infection were the most common postoperative complications. Overall burden of comorbidity, defined by Charlson Comorbidity Index, and coagulopathy were also found to be associated with higher complication rates. The decannulation rate at discharge was 46.3%. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous tracheostomy is a safe alternative to open tracheostomies in the community setting for appropriately selected patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".