Tracheal Replacement Techniques and Associated Mortality: A Systematic Review

Abstract

ObjectiveTracheal replacement is a crucial operation to enhance the quality of life for patients with extensive tracheal lesions. The most suitable surgical techniques for different clinical conditions remain a topic of debate. Through a reviewing of the relevant literature, this study investigated the association between surgical techniques and mortality rate.Data SourcesStudies were collected from PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov.MethodsThis systematic review encompassed literature from the inception of each database to May 10, 2023, focusing on tracheal replacement for patients who underwent circumferential resection of the trachea or partial resection with preservation of the posterior membranous wall. Non‐human and non‐clinical studies were excluded.ResultsAbout 31 studies were included in the assessment comprising a combination of case reports and case series, and 118 patients underwent tracheal replacement through four underlying methodologies, including tracheal allotransplantation, autologous tissue reconstruction, bioprosthetic reconstruction, or tissue engineering surgery. Each modality exhibits unique advantages and disadvantages, leading to variable outcomes in clinical application.ConclusionTracheal replacement is challenging due to the absence of an ideal substitution or graft material. Despite limited clinical successes observed across various modalities, we believe autologous tissue reconstruction for tracheal replacement has the advantage of broadest indications, low rejection rate, and avoidance of immunosuppressive agents. Future research should focus on achieving tracheal replacement that preserves mucociliary clearance, lateral rigidity, and longitudinal flexibility.Level of EvidenceN/A Laryngoscope, 2023

Tissue‐engineered tracheal implants: Advancements, challenges, and clinical considerations

“… 49 Continual endeavors in 3D printing of tracheal scaffolds, employing diverse materials and distinctive tubular designs reveal promising initial outcomes, although limited by single‐cell type technologies, deficiency of mechanical characterization, and inadequate revascularization. 50 …”