Objectives Tracheostomy is commonly used in intensive care units and in head and neck departments. Airway obstruction due to occluded cuffless tracheostomy tubes themselves remains unknown, although capping trials are commonly used before decannulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent to which airway obstruction can be caused by occluded cuffless tubes in patients who underwent head and neck surgery. Design Prospective Research Outcome. Settings University teaching hospital. Participants Fifty patients requiring transient tracheostomy after head and neck surgery. Main outcome measures A flow‐volume loop (FVL) through the mouth using a portable spirometer, with the occluded fenestrated cuffless tube, was measured before and immediately after decannulation, by obstructing the orifice of tracheostomy tube. The measurement of FVL recorded the forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced expiratory flow at 50% of FVC, peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and forced inspiratory flow at 50% of FVC. Results A statistically significant difference between all spirometric parameters was found. Mean PEF and PIF, respectively, increased from 2.8 to 4.5 L/s (P < .0001) and 2.3 to 2.7 L/s (P < .01) before and after decannulation, with a strong positive correlation (r = 0.7; P < .05). A mean expiratory (34%) and inspiratory (9%) airflow reduction was observed due to cannula. Conclusions Occluded cuffless tracheostomy tubes cause a dramatic airflow obstruction, mainly in the expiratory phase of FVL. This should be taken into account during capping trials.

Objectives To analyse the relationship between spirometric parameters measured with a face mask versus a mouthpiece, as well as the feasibility of face mask spirometric evaluation in a head and neck surgery (HNS) decannulation context. Furthermore, we examine peak inspiratory flow (PIF) cut‐off values before and after decannulation. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Otolaryngology HNS Department of a university teaching hospital. Participants Twenty‐four patients were selected. A maximal flow‐volume loop was conducted before (with mouthpiece) and after (with mouthpiece and face mask) decannulation. Main outcome measures Recorded outcomes were forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in the first second, peak expiratory flow, PIF, forced expiratory flow at 50% of FVC and forced inspiratory flow at 50% of FVC. Spearman correlation coefficients between spirometric parameters measured with a face mask versus a mouthpiece were calculated. Wilcoxon test was used to check differences between mouthpiece and face mask values. Results Correlation between mouthpiece and face mask spirometric values was moderate to high (r = 0.46–0.95). All parameters measured by spirometry were significantly lower with a face mask than those obtained with a mouthpiece (p < 0.05). Before decannulation, the lowest PIF value (tested with mouthpiece) that allowed successful decannulation was 1 L/s. After decannulation, the lowest PIF value tested with mouthpiece and face mask for successful completion of the decannulation process were 0.77 and 0.56 L/s, respectively. Conclusion Face mask is a feasible option to perform a spirometry when face diseases hinder spirometric evaluation through a mouthpiece in an HNC surgery context.