ArticleCureus2025
Percutaneous vs. Surgical Tracheostomy: A Comparative Analysis of Efficiency, Cost, and Hospital Stay.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Tracheostomy is a regularly performed procedure for patients requiring prolonged ventilatory support in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our community hospital implemented a new percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) program in an attempt to decrease operational costs and navigate operating room limitations. After the successful rollout, we performed a study comparing PT and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in terms of efficiency, ICU stay, and cost after one year to determine the outcomes a community hospital could expect in the early stages of PT implementation. Methods This is a cohort study with retrospective data collected from hospital records for both ST and PT over the years 2023-2024. Outcomes measured included consult-to-procedure time, procedural duration, ICU stay, and cost. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results PT had a significantly shorter consult-to-procedure time (p=0.0039), with a mean of 1.76 days, compared to 4.139 days for ST. PT was also faster in procedural duration (p=0.0001), averaging 8.66 minutes, versus 53.93 minutes for ST. ICU length of stay showed no statistical difference (p=0.3919), with PT patients staying three days versus 3.79 days for ST. Cost analysis revealed PT was significantly more cost-effective, averaging $971.93, compared to $2,397.98 for ST. Conclusion PT is a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to ST, significantly reducing consult-to-procedure time and procedure duration. Although ICU length of stay did not reach statistical significance, PT demonstrates clear advantages in terms of resource utilization and cost savings.
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.