MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409161568 · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000003430

Optimal Tracheostomy Timing After Traumatic Complete Spinal Cord Injury: A Comparative Analysis of Ultraearly, Early, and Delayed Practice

2025· article· en· W4409161568 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Essa, Husain Shakil, Armaan K. Malhotra, Avery B. Nathens, Jetan H. Badhiwala, Eva Y. Yuan, Yingshi He, François Mathieu, Michael C. Sklar, Jefferson R. Wilson, Christopher D. Witiw

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitSpinal cord injuryMechanical ventilationAirwayRetrospective cohort studyAnesthesiaObservational studyCohort studySurgerySpinal cordInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tracheostomy is crucial for managing airway and respiratory complications in spinal cord injury (SCI) patients, with recent studies linking its timing to respiratory outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the association between adverse events and tracheostomy timing in complete traumatic cervical SCI patients. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective observational cohort study used data from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program between 2010 and 2020 and included all complete traumatic cervical SCI patients who underwent spine surgery and tracheostomy. Tracheostomy timing was categorized into ultraearly (≤3 days), early (4-7 days), and delayed (>7 days) after surgery. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major in-hospital complications (HC). Secondary outcomes included immobility complications (IC), surgical site infections, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and duration of mechanical ventilation. A secondary analysis directly compared the ultraearly and early tracheostomy groups. RESULTS: Among 2907 patients analyzed, 307 (10.6%) underwent ultraearly, 1034 (35.5%) early, and 1566 (53.9%) delayed tracheostomy. Adjusted multivariable analyses revealed significant reductions in HC and IC by 33% to 47% and 28% to 32%, respectively, for the ultraearly and early tracheostomy groups compared with the delayed group. In addition, both ultraearly and early groups experienced similar shorter hospital and ICU stays, and shorter ventilation durations compared with the delayed group. Secondary analysis with a direct comparison between the ultraearly and early groups showed a significant reduction of 3 days in ICU LOS in the ultraearly group. However, there were no significant differences in HC, IC, surgical site infections, hospital LOS, or ventilation duration between the ultraearly and early groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that ultraearly and early tracheostomy provide comparable benefits with delayed tracheostomy. If confirmed in prospective studies, this flexibility in tracheostomy timing would allow more thorough patient assessments, ensuing goal-concordant care and making informed decisions without compromising the advantages of early intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicTracheal and airway disordersFrench-language works237,207