Complication rates of open surgical versus percutaneous tracheostomy in critically ill patients

BackgroundIn the setting of critical care, the most common indications for tracheostomy include: prolonged intubation, to facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation, and for pulmonary toileting. In this setting, tracheostomy can be performed either via open surgical or percutaneous technique. Advantages for percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) include: simplicity, smaller incision, less tissue trauma, lower incidence of wound infection, lower incidence of peristomal bleeding, decreased morbidity from patient transfer, and cost-effectiveness. Despite many studies comparing surgical tracheostomy (ST) versus PDT, there remains no consensus on which of these techniques minimizes complications in critically ill patients. PurposeTo provide an updated meta-analysis to answer the following question: Is there a difference in complication rates between ST and PDT in the setting of critically ill patients? Our secondary outcome of interest was to examine the difference in procedure time in the ST versus PDT groups. MethodsWe conducted a literature search using the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies from 1985 until October 2014 published in French or English languages in peer-reviewed journals were included. ResultsWith regard to rates of mortality, intraoperative hemorrhage, and postoperative hemorrhage, there was no statistically significant difference between the two techniques. Evaluation of infections rates and operative time, however, revealed a statistically significant difference, favoring PDT over ST. ConclusionIn critically ill patients, PDT appears to be a safe and efficient alternative to open ST. Level of EvidenceNA Laryngoscope, 126:2459-2467, 2016