Avoiding prophylactic tracheostomies in head and neck surgeries with reconstructive free flaps: An institutional shift in practice
Research article published in Oral oncology (2026)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2018, an initiative at the authors' institution aimed at reducing routine prophylactic tracheostomies for head and neck reconstructions with free flaps was implemented. Discussion between the surgical team and anesthesia about if a tracheostomy should be performed became the standard of care. The safety of this selective approach is assessed. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients ≥18-years who underwent a free flap for oral or oropharyngeal primaries from 2015 to 2021 at a single centre. Statistical analysis included subgroup analysis of patients pre-vs. post-2018. RESULTS: A total of 411 patients were included. Prophylactic tracheostomy rates decreased from 92.6% to 42.7% pre-2018 to post-2018. There was no significant difference in airway compromise or flap failure rates with non-tracheostomy. Post-2018, variables associated with tracheostomies included oropharynx primaries, advanced clinical nodal disease, and bilateral neck dissection (p < 0.05). On multivariate regression, surgical time (OR 1.182, p < 0.001), anesthetic time (OR 1.165, p < 0.001) and advanced clinical nodes (OR 1.304, p < 0.05) had increased odds of tracheostomy post-2018, while scapula vs. radial forearm free flaps had decreased odds (OR 0.717, p < 0.05). Patients with tracheostomies had longer hospital stays and more observed post-operative complications (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic tracheostomies can be safely avoided in select patients undergoing oral and oropharyngeal free flaps, with no difference in airway or flap failure complications. These findings support multidisciplinary discussion between surgical and anesthetic teams regarding the indications for tracheostomies in head and neck cases. Further prospective studies are needed to identify exact criteria for tracheostomies in head and neck reconstructions with free flaps.
Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.
Resumen
Peer-reviewed clinical and outcomes research relevant to medicinal leech therapy and its biology. Indexed in PubMed and verified against the NCBI record.
Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia
Esta revisión retrospectiva unicéntrica (411 pacientes, 2015-2021) examinó si la traqueostomía profiláctica puede evitarse de forma segura en la reconstrucción con colgajo libre de cabeza y cuello tras un cambio de práctica en 2018; las tasas de traqueostomía profiláctica disminuyeron del 92.6% al 42.7%, sin diferencias significativas en el compromiso de la vía aérea ni en las tasas de fracaso del colgajo, y los pacientes con traqueostomía tuvieron estancias más prolongadas y más complicaciones. Para la hirudoterapia, el vínculo es indirecto y contextual: se refiere al manejo de la vía aérea/perioperatorio de las mismas reconstrucciones con colgajo libre para las cuales la terapia con sanguijuelas es un coadyuvante establecido contra la congestión venosa, pero el estudio en sí trata sobre la toma de decisiones respecto a la traqueostomía, no sobre el rescate del colgajo ni el secretoma de la sanguijuela. Advertencia: se trata de una cohorte retrospectiva de una sola institución cuyos autores solicitan estudios prospectivos para definir criterios exactos; no hace mención de la terapia con sanguijuelas y no debe interpretarse como evidencia a favor ni en contra de esta.
Citación
Avoiding prophylactic tracheostomies in head and neck surgeries with reconstructive free flaps: An institutional shift in practice.
Liu et al. · Oral oncology, 2026
Contexto clínico relacionado
Explore cómo esta investigación se conecta con la práctica clínica
Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: May 28, 2026 · Última actualización del sitio: June 18, 2026