Objective To synthesize evidence of the safety and effectiveness of phonation in patients with fenestrated tracheostomy tubes. Methods PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched. The research question was, “Are fenestrated tracheostomy tubes a safe and effective option to facilitate early phonation in patients undergoing tracheostomy?” Studies of fenestrated tracheostomy tubes were assessed for risk of bias and quality of evidence. Data were abstracted, cross-checked for accuracy, and synthesized. Results Of the 160 studies identified, 13 met inclusion criteria, including 6 clinical studies (104 patients), 6 case reports (13 patients), and 1 nationwide clinician survey. The primary indications for a tracheostomy were chronic ventilator dependence (83%) and airway protection (17%). Indications for fenestrated tracheostomy included inaudible phonation and poor voice intelligibility. Patients with fenestrated tubes achieved robust voice outcomes. Complications included granulation tissue (6 patients [5%]), malpositioning (1 patient [0.9%]), decreased oxygen saturation (3 patients [2.6%]), increased blood pressure (1 patient [0.9%]), increased peak pressures (2 patients [1.7%]), and air leakage (1 patient [0.9%]); subcutaneous emphysema also occurred frequently. Patient-reported symptoms included shortness of breath (4 patients [3.4%]), anxiety (3 patients [2.6%]), and chest discomfort (1 patient [0.9%]). Conclusions Fenestrated devices afford benefits for speech and decannulation but carry risks of granulation, aberrant airflow, and acclimation challenges. Findings highlight the need for continued innovation, education, and quality improvement around the use of fenestrated devices.

Purpose The purpose of this clinical focus article is to describe the frequency, indications, and outcomes of fenestrated tracheostomy tube use in a large academic institution. Method A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate the use of fenestrated tracheostomy tubes between 2007 and 2017. Patients were included in the study if they were ≥ 18 years of age and received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube in the recent 10-year period. Results Of 2,000 patients who received a tracheostomy, 15 patients had a fenestrated tracheostomy tube; however, only 5 patients received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube at the study institution. The primary reason why the 15 patients received a tracheostomy was chronic respiratory failure (73%); other reasons included airway obstruction (20%) and airway protection (7%). Thirteen (87%) patients received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube for phonation purposes. The remaining 2 patients received it as a step to weaning. Of the 13 patients who received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube for phonation, only 1 patient was not able to phonate. Nine (60%) patients developed some type of complications: granulation only, 2 (13.3%); granulation and tracheomalacia, 2 (13.3%); granulation and stenosis, 4 (26.7%); and granulation, tracheomalacia, and stenosis, 1 (6.7%). Conclusions Fenestrated tracheostomy tubes may assist with phonation in patients who cannot tolerate a 1-way speaking valve; however, the risk of developing granulation tissue, tracheomalacia, and tracheal stenosis exists. Health care providers should be educated on the safe use of a fenestrated tracheostomy tube and other options available to improve phonation while ensuring patient safety.

No abstract