Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Portable Small-Bore Chest Tube (Thoracic Egg Catheter) in Spontaneous Pneumothorax.

Q3 Medicine
Hyon Keun Joh, Duk Hwan Moon, Sungsoo Lee
{"title":"Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Portable Small-Bore Chest Tube (Thoracic Egg Catheter) in Spontaneous Pneumothorax.","authors":"Hyon Keun Joh,&nbsp;Duk Hwan Moon,&nbsp;Sungsoo Lee","doi":"10.5090/kjtcs.2020.53.2.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary spontaneous pneumothorax is commonly treated with chest tube insertion, which requires hospitalization. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy, costs, and benefits of a portable small-bore chest tube (Thoracic Egg; Sumitomo Bakelite Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) compared with a conventional chest tube.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed all primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients who underwent treatment at Gangnam Severance Hospital between August 2014 and May 2018.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 279 patients were divided into 2 groups: the conventional group (n=236) and the Thoracic Egg group (n=43). Of the 236 patients in the conventional group, 100 were excluded because they underwent surgery during the study period. The efficacy and cost were compared between the 2 groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding recurrence (conventional group, 36 patients [26.5%]; Thoracic Egg group, 15 patients [29.4%]; p=0.287). However, the Egg group had statistically significantly lower mean medical expenses than the conventional group (433,413 Korean won and 522,146 Korean won, respectively; p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although portable small-bore chest tubes may not be significantly more efficacious than conventional chest tubes, their use is significantly less expensive. We believe that the Thoracic Egg catheter could be a less costly alternative to conventional chest tube insertion.</p>","PeriodicalId":38678,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","volume":"53 2","pages":"49-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2f/eb/kjtcv-53-049.PMC7155180.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2020.53.2.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Primary spontaneous pneumothorax is commonly treated with chest tube insertion, which requires hospitalization. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy, costs, and benefits of a portable small-bore chest tube (Thoracic Egg; Sumitomo Bakelite Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) compared with a conventional chest tube.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients who underwent treatment at Gangnam Severance Hospital between August 2014 and May 2018.

Results: A total of 279 patients were divided into 2 groups: the conventional group (n=236) and the Thoracic Egg group (n=43). Of the 236 patients in the conventional group, 100 were excluded because they underwent surgery during the study period. The efficacy and cost were compared between the 2 groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding recurrence (conventional group, 36 patients [26.5%]; Thoracic Egg group, 15 patients [29.4%]; p=0.287). However, the Egg group had statistically significantly lower mean medical expenses than the conventional group (433,413 Korean won and 522,146 Korean won, respectively; p<0.001).

Conclusion: Although portable small-bore chest tubes may not be significantly more efficacious than conventional chest tubes, their use is significantly less expensive. We believe that the Thoracic Egg catheter could be a less costly alternative to conventional chest tube insertion.

Abstract Image

便携式小口径胸管(胸卵管)治疗自发性气胸的疗效及成本效益。
背景:原发性自发性气胸通常采用胸管插入治疗,需要住院治疗。在这项研究中,我们评估了便携式小口径胸管(Thoracic Egg;住友胶木株式会社,东京,日本)与传统胸管相比。方法:回顾性分析2014年8月至2018年5月在江南Severance医院接受治疗的所有原发性自发性气胸患者。结果:279例患者分为常规组236例和胸卵组43例。在常规组的236名患者中,有100名患者因在研究期间接受了手术而被排除在外。比较两组患者的疗效和成本。两组间复发率差异无统计学意义(常规组36例[26.5%];胸卵组15例[29.4%];p = 0.287)。但是,蛋类组的平均医疗费(43.3413万韩元)和52.2146万韩元,比普通组低得多。结论:尽管便携式小口径胸管可能并不比传统胸管更有效,但其使用成本明显更低。我们相信胸卵导管是一种比传统胸管置入成本更低的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信