Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

What evaluation criteria for prophylactic innominate artery transection were appropriate in the neurologically impaired patients who require laryngotracheal separation?

Created on 18 Aug 2025

Authors

Naruki Higashidate, Naoki Hashizume, Yoshinori Koga, Daisuke Masui, Saki Sakamoto, Tomohiro Kurahachi, Hiroki Yoshida, Tatsuru Kaji

Published in

Pediatric surgery international. Volume 41. Issue 1. Pages 250. Aug 18, 2025. Epub Aug 18, 2025.

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze laryngotracheal separation (LTS) outcomes and evaluate the efficacy of the evaluation criteria for prophylactic innominate artery transection (PIAT) in neurologically impaired patients.
67 patients who underwent LTS were reviewed. They were divided into three groups: patients without a tracheostomy tube (TT) (Group 1), patients with a TT but without PIAT (Group 2) and patients with TT and PIAT (Group 3). The length between the dorsal edge of the sternum and ventral edge of the vertebra (D-to-V), tracheal flattening ratio (TFR), and mediastinum-thoracic anteroposterior ratio (MTR), as evaluation criteria for PIAT based on the previous studies were measured.
62 patients [F/M = 25/37, Group 1 (n = 27), Group 2 (n = 29), and Group 3 (n = 6)] were analyzed. Three patients in Group 3 underwent PIAT after LTS due to intratracheal granuloma and minor bleeding. The TFR in Group 3 was significantly lower than that in Group 1 and 2 (p = 0.0236, 0.0054). The proportions of patients who met the criteria for PIAT were 5cases (8.06%) assessed by D-to-V, 21cases (33.87%) by TFR, and 37cases (59.68%) by MTR.
D-to-V would be the efficient criteria for PIAT and low TFR and MTR patients should be followed up carefully.

PMID:
40820197
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 18 Aug 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 69
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement