ArticleArchives of Iranian medicine2022
Accidental Foreign Body Aspiration Through Tracheostomy Inlet; 26 cases.
Article in Archives of Iranian medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundForeign body aspiration from tracheostomy is very rare, and materials related to tracheostomy are usually aspirated. This condition, which can lead to serious complications, can be treated using bronchoscopic procedures. In this study, we aimed to present our clinical experience in foreign body aspiration via tracheostomy.
methodsData from 26 patients who presented to our hospital for foreign body aspiration via tracheostomy from 2006 to 2020 were analyzed retrospectively.
resultsForeign bodies were removed by fiber optic bronchoscopy in 15 (57.7%) cases, by rigid bronchoscopy in 9 (34.6%) cases and both methods were used in 2 (7.7%) cases. During bronchoscopy, local anesthetic procedures were used in 13 (50%) cases and general anesthesia was used in 11 (42.3%) cases. No anesthesia was used in two (7.7%) patients who underwent bronchoscopy under intensive care conditions. While the mean operative time for flexible bronchoscopy was 8.77±0.83 (CI: 26.03-29.43) minutes, the mean operative time for rigid bronchoscopy was 27.73±2.53 (CI: 26.03-29.43) minutes.
conclusionBoth rigid bronchoscopy and fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) have advantages and disadvantages in foreign body removal. In our opinion, it is more reasonable to perform fiber optic bronchoscopy first in patients with a tracheostoma. In the light of our experiences, fiber optic bronchoscopy does not require general anesthesia and the operation time is shorter than rigid bronchoscopy. This feature makes fiber optic bronchoscopy advantageous.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.