SynthesisThe Laryngoscope2026
Tracheostomy vs. Delayed Extubation in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in The Laryngoscope, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHigh volume centers are trialing delayed extubation (DE) as an alternative management strategy to tracheostomy in patients undergoing head and neck reconstruction to bypass the pharyngolaryngeal oedema and ensure unobstructed ventilation. There remains a paucity of synthesized evidence in this area. DATA SOURCES: This study represents the largest systematic review on this topic from databases including PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. REVIEW
methodsReview is conducted through JBI's methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness with findings reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. A meta-analysis was conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method with risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals calculated.
resultsFor tracheostomy patients, weighted mean hospital and intensive care stay was 13.3 and 1.83 days respectively. For DE, the results were 12.25 and 1.47 days respectively. Meta-analysis for airway complications was statistically significant with a risk ratio of 4.14 (95% CI, 2.67-6.40) favoring the DE group. Risk ratio for flap complications was significant at 8.19 (95% CI, 3.41-19.65) favoring the DE group. One study reported overall survival and disease-free survival at 88.2% and 68.3% for tracheostomy group respectively, compared to 95.7% and 89.1% in the DE cohort.
conclusionTracheostomy can no longer be considered routine and poses risks which should be considered in a shared decision-making model with the patient and assessed within a multidisciplinary setting. This study also highlights the emergence of DE, which can be considered in select patient populations. Further RCTs are required in this area.
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.