Comparative Analysis of Vertical and U-Shaped Tracheostomy Incision Healing Rates: Fibroblast Cell Count Examination

Authors

  • Edwin Z. Sipayung Universitas Sam Ratulangi
  • Sherly Tandililing Universitas Sam Ratulangi
  • Nico Lumintang Universitas Sam Ratulangi
  • Fredrik G. Langi Universitas Sam Ratulangi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35790/ecl.v13i3.62848

Abstract

Abstract: Airway emergencies can significantly increase morbidity and mortality rates, necessitating prompt and accurate assessment and management. Tracheostomy, a procedure to address inadequate ventilation and upper airway obstruction, involves various techniques such as vertical and U-shaped incisions, each affecting wound healing differently. This study aimed to analyze and compare the wound healing rates of vertical versus U-shaped tracheostomy incisions in terms of fibroblast cell count. This was an experimental preclinical study utilized white rats (Rattus novergicus) divided into two groups based on tracheal incision types: vertical and U-shaped. Fibroblast cell count served as the primary measure of healing, examined under a light microscope with hematoxylin-eosin staining. The results showed that the median fibroblast cell count was significantly higher in the U-shaped incision group (103.5 pg/mL) compared to the vertical incision group (25.2 pg/mL), indicating faster healing in the U-shaped incision group. In conclusion, the U-shaped tracheostomy incision demonstrates superior wound healing compared to the vertical incision, reflected by higher fibroblast cell counts. Further research is recommended to confirm these findings in clinical settings.

Keywords: fibroblasts; U-shaped tracheostomy; vertical tracheostomy

Author Biographies

  • Edwin Z. Sipayung, Universitas Sam Ratulangi

    Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Manado, Indonesiai

  • Sherly Tandililing, Universitas Sam Ratulangi

    Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sam Ratulangi , Manado, Indonesia

  • Nico Lumintang, Universitas Sam Ratulangi

    Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sam Ratulangi , Manado, Indonesia

  • Fredrik G. Langi, Universitas Sam Ratulangi

    Faculty of Public Health, Unioversitas Sam Ratulangi, Manado, Indonesia

References

1. Cheung NH, Napolitano LM. Tracheostomy: epidemiology, indications, timing, technique, and outcomes discussion. Respir Care. 2014;59(6):895–919. Doi: 10.4187/respcare.02971

2. Lim SY, Kwack WG, Kim Y. Comparison of outcomes between vertical and transverse skin incisions in percutaneous tracheostomy for critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study. Crit Care. 2018;22(1): 1–7. Doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2174-y

3. Phifer-Rixey M, Nachman MW. Insights into mammalian biology from the wild house mouse Rattus novergiatus. Elife. 2015;2015(4):1–13. Doi: 10.7554/eLife.05959

4. Furlow PW, Mathisen DJ. Surgical anatomy of the trachea. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;7(2):255–60. Doi: 10.21037/acs.2018.03.01

5. Al-Shathri Z, Susanto I. Percutaneous tracheostomy. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;39(6):720–30. Doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1676573

6. Raimonde AJ, Westhoven N, Winters R. Tracheostomy. In: Encyclopedia of Respiratory Medicine, Four-Volume Set. StatPearls Publishing; 2022. p. 239–42. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32644550/

7. Engels PT, Bagshaw SM, Meier M, Brindley PG. Tracheostomy: from insertion to decannulation. Can J Surg. 2009;52(5):427. Available from: https:// pubmed. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/19865580/

8. Kennedy MM, Abdel-Aty Y, Lott DG. Comparing tracheostomy techniques: Bjork flap vs. tracheal window. Am J Otolaryngol. 2021;42(6):103030. Doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103030

9. Fernandez-Bussy S, Mahajan B, Folch E, Caviedes I, Guerrero J, Majid A. Tracheostomy tube placement: early and late complications. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2015;22(4):357–64. Doi: 10.1097/LBR. 0000000000000177

10. Sidam S, Nasi A, Gupta V. Impact of vertical and horizontal skin incisions on outcome measures in tracheostomies. Cureus. 2024;13:e54142. Doi: 10.7759/cureus.54142

11. Alsunaid S, Holden VK, Kohli A, Diaz J, O’Meara LB. Wound care management: tracheostomy and gastrostomy. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13(8):5297–313. Doi: 10.21037/jtd-2019-ipicu-13

Downloads

Published

2025-08-07

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2025): e-CliniC

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Edwin Z. Sipayung, Sherly Tandililing, Nico Lumintang, Fredrik G. Langi

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

COPYRIGHT

 

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors hold their copyright and grant this journal the privilege of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that permits others to impart the work with an acknowledgment of the work's origin and initial publication by this journal.

Authors can enter into separate or additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (for example, post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its underlying publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (for example, in institutional repositories or on their website) as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

How to Cite

Comparative Analysis of Vertical and U-Shaped Tracheostomy Incision Healing Rates: Fibroblast Cell Count Examination. (2025). E-CliniC, 13(3), 454-457. https://doi.org/10.35790/ecl.v13i3.62848

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>