• C Y Y Wong, A A Shakir, A Farboud, and H B Whittet.
• Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Singleton Hospital, ABMU Healthboard Wales, Swansea, UK.
• Clin Otolaryngol. 2016 Dec 1; 41 (6): 646-651.

ObjectiveTo determine whether active or passive humidification methods are more effective in preventing pulmonary complications in self-ventilating neck breather patients.DesignSystematic Review adhering to PRISMA guidance (checklist sourced from www.equator-network.org/).SettingReview of current published relevant literature at a tertiary department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery.ParticipantsWe included all separate studies and comparison studies of active and passive humidification techniques in adult and paediatric neck breather patients.Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary outcome is the reduction in pulmonary complications. Secondary outcomes include patient compliance; carer and user satisfaction.Results And ConclusionsSeven studies were included in this review: two RCTs (133 patients), one randomised controlled cross-over trial (29 patients), three randomised prospective studies (171 patients), and one retrospective study (73 patients). Only one study was conducted on paediatric neck breathers. The overall quality of the studies was low. Five studies were at a high risk of bias. Of the remaining two studies, one study had a low risk of bias and the other had an unclear risk. Despite limited subject evidence, results show that passive methods of humidification (mainly HME) is the preferred choice of humidification in the spontaneously breathing neck breather patients group mainly due to the reduction in pulmonary complaints, and better patient compliance.© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

7 keywords...

hide…