ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2026
Short-term surgical outcomes of tritube flow-controlled ventilation versus crossfield ıntubation ın patients undergoing surgery for postintubation tracheal stenosis : FCV vs. crossfield in tracheal stenosis surgery.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePostintubation tracheal stenosis (PITS) results from ischemic damage and granulation tissue formation due to prolonged high cuff pressure. Surgical resection and reconstruction is the gold standard treatment, with success rates exceeding 94%. Tritube with flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) offers advantages such as a better surgical field, uninterrupted ventilation, and reduced contamination risk. Traditionally, crossfield intubation has been the standard approach worldwide. This study aims to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of Tritube FCV and crossfield intubation in PITS patients.
methodsThis retrospective study included 131 patients who underwent surgery for PITS between 2015 and 2025. Tritube FCV was used in 22 patients (Group 1), while crossfield intubation was used in 109 patients (Group 2).
resultsMean age and gender distribution were similar between groups. Group 1 had significantly more comorbidities (p = 0.005). Surgery duration, hospital stay, and incision type showed no significant differences. The resected segment was longer in Group 1, though not statistically significant (p = 0.073). Continuous suture technique was more commonly used in Group 1 (p < 0.001). Rates of restenosis and postoperative complications were similar. Overall survival was significantly better in the Tritube FCV group (p = 0.004).
conclusionsDespite having more preoperative risk factors, patients in the Tritube FCV group had comparable surgical outcomes and significantly better overall survival. Tritube FCV appears to be a safe and effective alternative, even in high-risk PITS patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41231335What 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.