Cervical spine clearance and neck extension during percutaneous tracheostomy in trauma patients
INTRODUCTIONThe lack of cervical spine clearance and inability to extend the neck are assumed to be relative contraindications for percutaneous tracheostomy. OBJECTIVETo determine the necessity of cervical spine clearance and neck extension in trauma patients receiving percutaneous tracheostomy. DES...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Critical care medicine 2000-10, Vol.28 (10), p.3436-3440 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | INTRODUCTIONThe lack of cervical spine clearance and inability to extend the neck are assumed to be relative contraindications for percutaneous tracheostomy.
OBJECTIVETo determine the necessity of cervical spine clearance and neck extension in trauma patients receiving percutaneous tracheostomy.
DESIGNProspective analysis of case series from August 1, 1995 to August 31, 1998.
SETTINGA university-based Level I trauma center.
PATIENTSA total of 88 consecutive trauma patients receiving percutaneous tracheostomy. Patients were divided into two groups based on the radiographic or clinical status of their cervical spinecleared and noncleared.
RESULTSThe overall success and complication rate were 99% (87/88) and 11% (10/88), respectively. There were no procedure-related deaths. The cleared group consisted of 60 patients; three patients in this group who had “bull” or “thick” necks did not have full neck extension during percutaneous tracheostomy. The noncleared group consisted of 28 patients, 13 of which had known cervical spine fractures; 27 noncleared patients were maintained in the neutral position (no extension) during percutaneous tracheostomy, whereas one patient with low suspicion of spinal injury was partially extended. Of the 13 patients with cervical spine fractures, six patients had been stabilized with a halo or operative fixation, and seven patients were stabilized with a cervical collar at the time of percutaneous tracheostomy. The success rate was 100% (60/60) for the cleared group compared with 96% (27/28) for the noncleared group (p > .05). The complication rate was 13% (8/60) for the cleared group compared with 7.1% (2/28) for the noncleared group (p > .05). We had a 100% success rate and no complications in the seven patients with cervical spine injury who were stabilized with a cervical collar. No patient had spinal cord injury caused by percutaneous tracheostomy.
CONCLUSIONPercutaneous tracheostomy can be safely performed in trauma patients without cervical spine clearance and neck extension, including patients with stabilized cervical spine or spinal cord injury. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0090-3493 1530-0293 |
DOI: | 10.1097/00003246-200010000-00011 |