治疗儿童自发性气胸的猪尾巴导管与大口径胸管:回顾性研究。

IF 1.5 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
European Journal of Pediatric Surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-29 DOI:10.1055/a-2102-4360
Tal Weiss, Yael Dreznik, Dragan Kravarusic
{"title":"治疗儿童自发性气胸的猪尾巴导管与大口径胸管:回顾性研究。","authors":"Tal Weiss, Yael Dreznik, Dragan Kravarusic","doi":"10.1055/a-2102-4360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong> Pigtail catheter (PGC) insertion due to spontaneous pneumothorax (SPT) in the pediatric population has increased markedly in the last years. However, only few studies examined its efficacy in terms of length of hospitalization, rate of complications, and especially pain management comparing to large bore catheter (LBC) insertion. We sought to compare analgetic drug consumption, efficacy, and complication rate between PGC and LBC in children with SPT.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong> This is a single-center retrospective study of pediatric patients that were admitted to the Schneider Children's Medical Center between 2013 and 2021 with a diagnosis of SPT. The following data were collected: type of drainage (PGC or LBC), duration of drainage, length of hospitalization, number of X-rays, complication rate, surgery during hospitalization, readmission due to SPT, and pain management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Seventeen PGC and 23 LBC were inserted in our study. No differences were noted in terms of hospitalization length, tube reposition or replacement, and recurrence of SPT between the groups. Patients with PGC underwent less X-rays comparing to the LBC group (3 X-rays vs. 5, median, <i>p</i> < 0.005). Oral analgesic use in terms of length of therapy was significantly lower in the PGC group than in the LBC group (1 vs. 3+ days, median, <i>p</i> < 0.05). There was no major complication in this cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> PGC is an effective, safe, and less painful alternative compared with a LBC for the drainage of SPT in children.</p>","PeriodicalId":56316,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pediatric Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"346-350"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pigtail Catheter versus Large Bore Chest Tube for the Management of Spontaneous Pneumothorax in Children: A Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Tal Weiss, Yael Dreznik, Dragan Kravarusic\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2102-4360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong> Pigtail catheter (PGC) insertion due to spontaneous pneumothorax (SPT) in the pediatric population has increased markedly in the last years. However, only few studies examined its efficacy in terms of length of hospitalization, rate of complications, and especially pain management comparing to large bore catheter (LBC) insertion. We sought to compare analgetic drug consumption, efficacy, and complication rate between PGC and LBC in children with SPT.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong> This is a single-center retrospective study of pediatric patients that were admitted to the Schneider Children's Medical Center between 2013 and 2021 with a diagnosis of SPT. The following data were collected: type of drainage (PGC or LBC), duration of drainage, length of hospitalization, number of X-rays, complication rate, surgery during hospitalization, readmission due to SPT, and pain management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Seventeen PGC and 23 LBC were inserted in our study. No differences were noted in terms of hospitalization length, tube reposition or replacement, and recurrence of SPT between the groups. Patients with PGC underwent less X-rays comparing to the LBC group (3 X-rays vs. 5, median, <i>p</i> < 0.005). Oral analgesic use in terms of length of therapy was significantly lower in the PGC group than in the LBC group (1 vs. 3+ days, median, <i>p</i> < 0.05). There was no major complication in this cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> PGC is an effective, safe, and less painful alternative compared with a LBC for the drainage of SPT in children.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56316,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Pediatric Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"346-350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Pediatric Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2102-4360\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pediatric Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2102-4360","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:近年来,因自发性气胸(SPT)而在儿科人群中插入猪尾导管(PGC)的病例明显增加。然而,只有少数研究从住院时间、并发症发生率,尤其是疼痛控制方面考察了与大口径导管插入术(LBC)相比的疗效。我们试图比较 PGC 和 LBC 在 SPT 患儿中的镇痛药物消耗量、疗效和并发症发生率:这是一项单中心回顾性研究,研究对象为 2013 年至 2021 年期间在施奈德儿童医学中心住院并诊断为 SPT 的儿科患者。研究收集了以下数据:引流类型(PGC 或 LBC)、引流持续时间、住院时间、X 光检查次数、并发症发生率、住院期间手术情况、因 SPT 再次入院情况以及疼痛处理情况:我们的研究共插入了 17 个 PGC 和 23 个 LBC。两组患者在住院时间、管道重置或更换以及SPT复发方面没有差异。与 LBC 组相比,PGC 组患者接受 X 光检查的次数较少(3 次 X 光检查对 5 次 X 光检查,中位数,p p 结论:与 LBC 相比,PGC 是一种有效、安全且痛苦较少的儿童 SPT 引流替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pigtail Catheter versus Large Bore Chest Tube for the Management of Spontaneous Pneumothorax in Children: A Retrospective Study.

Introduction:  Pigtail catheter (PGC) insertion due to spontaneous pneumothorax (SPT) in the pediatric population has increased markedly in the last years. However, only few studies examined its efficacy in terms of length of hospitalization, rate of complications, and especially pain management comparing to large bore catheter (LBC) insertion. We sought to compare analgetic drug consumption, efficacy, and complication rate between PGC and LBC in children with SPT.

Materials and methods:  This is a single-center retrospective study of pediatric patients that were admitted to the Schneider Children's Medical Center between 2013 and 2021 with a diagnosis of SPT. The following data were collected: type of drainage (PGC or LBC), duration of drainage, length of hospitalization, number of X-rays, complication rate, surgery during hospitalization, readmission due to SPT, and pain management.

Results:  Seventeen PGC and 23 LBC were inserted in our study. No differences were noted in terms of hospitalization length, tube reposition or replacement, and recurrence of SPT between the groups. Patients with PGC underwent less X-rays comparing to the LBC group (3 X-rays vs. 5, median, p < 0.005). Oral analgesic use in terms of length of therapy was significantly lower in the PGC group than in the LBC group (1 vs. 3+ days, median, p < 0.05). There was no major complication in this cohort.

Conclusion:  PGC is an effective, safe, and less painful alternative compared with a LBC for the drainage of SPT in children.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
66
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This broad-based international journal updates you on vital developments in pediatric surgery through original articles, abstracts of the literature, and meeting announcements. You will find state-of-the-art information on: abdominal and thoracic surgery neurosurgery urology gynecology oncology orthopaedics traumatology anesthesiology child pathology embryology morphology Written by surgeons, physicians, anesthesiologists, radiologists, and others involved in the surgical care of neonates, infants, and children, the EJPS is an indispensable resource for all specialists.
×
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