The Pigtail Catheter for Pleural Drainage: A Less Invasive Alternative to Tube Thoracostomy

Asmita A. Mehta, A. Gupta, Aziz Kallikunnel Sayed Mohamed
{"title":"The Pigtail Catheter for Pleural Drainage: A Less Invasive Alternative to Tube Thoracostomy","authors":"Asmita A. Mehta, A. Gupta, Aziz Kallikunnel Sayed Mohamed","doi":"10.14740/JCS300E","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Thoracostomy tubes are a mainstay of treatment for removing fluid or air from the pleural space. Placement of a chest tube is, however, an invasive procedure with potential morbidity. In an effort to reduce these complications, the use of percutaneous pigtail catheters in place of traditional large-bore tubes for thoracostomy and pleural drainage has been described. The aim of the study was to determine the role of pigtail catheters in adult population for drainage of pleural effusion. Methods: It was an observational study. All consecutive patients with pleural effusion requiring drainage were subjected to either tube thoracostomy or pig tail drainage. A standardized questionnaire was prepared for retrieving data. Outcomes of interest were time to drain and total duration of hospital stay. Results: A total of 92 patients (71 men and 21 women; age range, 17 - 86 years; mean age, 54 ± 15 years) were enrolled into the study. Thirty-five patients were treated with traditional chest tubes, whereas 57 patients were treated with pigtail catheters. There were no significant differences in either drainage days or hospitalization days between the chest tube group and pigtail catheter group (9.81 ± 6 vs. 9 ± 5.6 and 13.8 ± 6 vs. 13 ± 5.7, respectively). Conclusions: The pigtail catheter offers reliable treatment of effusions and is a safe and less invasive alternative to tube thoracostomy. There was no significant difference in time to drain and duration of hospital stay in both the groups. J Curr Surg. 2016;6(2):52-56 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs300e","PeriodicalId":93115,"journal":{"name":"Journal of current surgery","volume":"46 1","pages":"52-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of current surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/JCS300E","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background: Thoracostomy tubes are a mainstay of treatment for removing fluid or air from the pleural space. Placement of a chest tube is, however, an invasive procedure with potential morbidity. In an effort to reduce these complications, the use of percutaneous pigtail catheters in place of traditional large-bore tubes for thoracostomy and pleural drainage has been described. The aim of the study was to determine the role of pigtail catheters in adult population for drainage of pleural effusion. Methods: It was an observational study. All consecutive patients with pleural effusion requiring drainage were subjected to either tube thoracostomy or pig tail drainage. A standardized questionnaire was prepared for retrieving data. Outcomes of interest were time to drain and total duration of hospital stay. Results: A total of 92 patients (71 men and 21 women; age range, 17 - 86 years; mean age, 54 ± 15 years) were enrolled into the study. Thirty-five patients were treated with traditional chest tubes, whereas 57 patients were treated with pigtail catheters. There were no significant differences in either drainage days or hospitalization days between the chest tube group and pigtail catheter group (9.81 ± 6 vs. 9 ± 5.6 and 13.8 ± 6 vs. 13 ± 5.7, respectively). Conclusions: The pigtail catheter offers reliable treatment of effusions and is a safe and less invasive alternative to tube thoracostomy. There was no significant difference in time to drain and duration of hospital stay in both the groups. J Curr Surg. 2016;6(2):52-56 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs300e
猪尾导管胸膜引流:一种微创胸腔插管的替代方法
背景:胸腔造瘘管是清除胸腔积液或空气的主要治疗方法。然而,放置胸管是一种具有潜在发病率的侵入性手术。为了减少这些并发症,经皮细尾导管取代传统的大口径导管用于开胸术和胸腔引流。本研究的目的是确定猪尾导管在成人胸腔积液引流中的作用。方法:观察性研究。所有需要引流胸腔积液的连续患者均接受管式开胸术或猪尾引流。为检索数据准备了一份标准化问卷。关注的结局是引流时间和总住院时间。结果:共92例患者,其中男性71例,女性21例;年龄范围:17 - 86岁;平均年龄(54±15岁)。35例患者采用传统胸管治疗,57例患者采用细尾导管治疗。胸管组与尾纤管组在引流天数和住院天数上均无显著差异(分别为9.81±6∶9±5.6、13.8±6∶13±5.7)。结论:猪尾导管治疗积液可靠,是一种安全、微创的胸腔插管替代方法。两组患者引流时间和住院时间差异无统计学意义。contemporary surgery . 2016;6(2):52-56 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs300e
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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信