A reply

Abstract

Thank you for the opportunity to reply. We are very glad to see a growing enthusiasm for an objective discussion about the indications and outcome of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. Our patient population included only post ICU patients that were rehabilitated but not yet decannulated. To our knowledge, such a study group has not been studied before. This is why many factors that may have contributed to the development of tracheal stenosis were not included in the study. We believe that this topic will benefit from prospective trials which include the follow-up of all patients and not just those who are symptomatic. Finally, we would agree with Bell and colleagues' sentiment: ‘the study provides a timely stimulus for all practitioners to think about their technique, patient selection, supervision of trainees, follow-up, collection of data under the principles of audit and governance, and provision of appropriate information when seeking consent or assent’.