The Throat Pack Debate: A Review of Current Practice in UK and Ireland Cleft Centers

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562110005
Author(s):  
Terry-Ann Curran ◽  
Nitisha Narayan ◽  
Lynn Fenner ◽  
Guy Thornburn ◽  
Marc C. Swan ◽  
...  

Introduction: The use of throat packs during oropharyngeal surgery has long been a topic of debate among cleft surgeons. The advantage of inserting an absorbent tulle within the pharynx must be weighed against the risk of unintended retention postoperatively. Despite safety check mechanisms in place, retention may occur with potentially life-threatening consequences. We present a comprehensive review of throat pack use in all cleft units within the United Kingdom and Ireland. Methods: All 20 cleft surgery units in the United Kingdom and Ireland were surveyed on their use of throat packs in children aged 6 months to 2 years undergoing elective cleft palate surgery. Results: The response rate to the survey was 100%. Seventy-five percent of units currently use throat packs; in 40%, they are used in addition to cuffed endotracheal tubes (ETTs). Inclusion of the throat pack in the surgical swab count was perceived as the safest mechanism employed to avoid retention. 26.1% of respondents were aware of at least 1 incident of pack retention in their unit. Discussion/Conclusion: The reported UK and Irish experience demonstrates that three-quarters of units routinely use packs. Notably, a quarter of respondents to the survey have experience of an incident of throat pack retention. Nevertheless, the majority of respondents considered the perceived risk of retaining a pack to be low. The growing use of microcuffed ETTs in UK cleft units paired with a low incidence of perioperative complications when a throat pack is not introduced might prompt cleft surgeons to review routine pharyngeal packing.

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 431-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saskia L. Boerboom ◽  
Sundar M. Muthukrishnan ◽  
Jurgen C. de Graaff ◽  
Gersten Jonker

2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 950-954 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Goldberg ◽  
Robert J. Sharp ◽  
Paul Cooke

Gut ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
J G Silcock ◽  
M G Bramble

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 476-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Bullock ◽  
Martin Steggall ◽  
Gareth Brown

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 713-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea L. Taylor ◽  
Astrid Kause ◽  
Barbara Summers ◽  
Melanie Harrowsmith

Abstract In the United Kingdom, the Met Office issues regionally calibrated impact-based weather warnings. These aim to reduce harm to people and property. To decrease risk from severe weather, it is important to understand how members of the U.K. public interpret and act on these warnings. This paper addresses this through a postevent survey (n = 552) conducted following Storm Doris, a 2017 winter storm during which wind warnings were issued across much of the United Kingdom. Survey questions examined 1) understanding of impact-based wind warnings, 2) interpretation of local warning level, 3) predictors of perceived local risk (likelihood, impact severity, concern) implied by warnings, 4) predictors of trust in the forecast, and 5) predictors of recalled and anticipated action. Our findings indicate that U.K. residents generally understand that weather warnings are based on potential weather impacts, although many do not realize warnings are regionally calibrated. We also find that while local warning levels are rarely underestimated, they may sometimes be overestimated. Institutional trust in the Met Office and perceived vulnerability to weather predict both perceived risk and behavioral response, while warning “understandability” is linked to greater trust in the forecast. Strikingly, while differences in local warning levels influenced risk perception, they did not affect recalled or intended behavioral response. This study highlights the importance of institutional trust in the effective communication of severe weather warnings, and a need for education on impact-based weather warnings. Above all, it demonstrates the need for further exploration of the effect of weather warnings on protective behavior.


2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 284-294
Author(s):  
◽  
Matthew Ellis ◽  
George Garas ◽  
John Hardman ◽  
Maha Khan ◽  
...  

Rheumatology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel P. Hawley ◽  
Helen E. Foster ◽  
Michael W. Beresford ◽  
Athimalaipet Ramanan ◽  
Tim Rapley ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document