BackgroundTracheostomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in critical care patient management; more specifically, ventilation through tracheal cannula allows removal of the endotracheal tube (ETT). Available literature about tracheostomy care and decannulation is mainly represented by expert opinions and no certain knowledge arises from it.MethodsIn lack of statistical requirements, a systematic and critical review of literature regarding tracheostomy tube removal was performed in order to assess predictor factors of successful decannulation and to propose a predictive score. We combined 3 terms and a literature search has been performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE via Ovid SP; EMBASE via Ovid SP; EBSCO. Abstracts were independently reviewed: for those studies fitting the inclusion criteria on the basis of the title and abstract, full-text was achieved. We included studies published from January 1, 1995 until March 31, 2014; any sort of review and expert opinion has been excluded by our survey. English language restriction was applied. Ten studies have been considered eligible for inclusion in the review and were analysed further.ResultsCough effectiveness and ability to tolerate tracheostomy tube capping are the most considered parameters in clinical practice; other parameters are taken into different consideration by many authors in order to proceed to decannulation. Among them, we distinguished between objective quantitative parameters and semi-quantitative parameters more dependent from clinician’s opinion. We then built a score (the Quantitative semi Quantitative score: QsQ score) based on selected parameters coming from literature.ConclusionsOn our knowledge, this review provides the first proposal of decannulation score system based on current literature that is hypothetical and requires to be validated in daily practice. The key point of our proposal is to give a higher value to the objective parameters coming from literature compared to less quantifiable clinical ones.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 , is highly contagious with devastating impacts for healthcare systems worldwide.Medical staff are at high risk of viral contamination and it is imperative to know what personal protective equipment is appropriate for each situation. Furthermore, elective clinics and operations have been reduced in order to mobilize manpower to the acute specialties combatting the outbreak; appropriate differentiation between patients who require immediate care and those who can receive telephone consultation or whose treatment might viably be postponed is therefore crucial.Italy was one of the earliest and hardest-hit European countries and therefore the Italian Skull Base Society board has promulgated specific recommendations based on consensus best practices and the literature, where available. Only urgent surgical operations are recommended and all patients should be tested at least twice (on days 4 and 2 prior to surgery). For positive patients, procedures should be postponed until after swab test negativization. If the procedure is vital to the survival of the patient, FFP3 and/or PAPRs devices, goggles, full-face visor, double gloves, water-resistant gowns and protective caps, are mandatory. For negative patients, use of at least FFP2 mask is recommended. In all cases the use of drills, which promote the aerosolization of potentially infected mucous particles, should be avoided. Given the potential neurotropism of SARS-CoV-2, dura handling should be minimized. It is only through widely-agreed protocols and teamwork that we will be able to deal with the evolving and complex implications of this new pandemic.

No abstract