-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Chest X-ray (CXR) is a longstanding method for the diagnosis of pneumothorax but chest ultrasonography (CUS) may be a safer, more rapid, and more accurate modality in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chest X-ray (CXR) is a longstanding method for the diagnosis of pneumothorax but chest ultrasonography (CUS) may be a safer, more rapid, and more accurate modality in trauma patients at the bedside that does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. This may lead to improved and expedited management of traumatic pneumothorax and improved patient safety and clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasonography (CUS) by frontline non-radiologist physicians versus chest X-ray (CXR) for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). To investigate the effects of potential sources of heterogeneity such as type of CUS operator (frontline non-radiologist physicians), type of trauma (blunt vs penetrating), and type of US probe on test accuracy.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases from database inception to 10 April 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. We handsearched reference lists of included articles and reviews retrieved via electronic searching; and we carried out forward citation searching of relevant articles in Google Scholar and looked at the "Related articles" on PubMed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective, paired comparative accuracy studies comparing CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians to supine CXR in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED) suspected of having pneumothorax, and with computed tomography (CT) of the chest or tube thoracostomy as the reference standard.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study using a data extraction form. We included studies using patients as the unit of analysis in the main analysis and we included those using lung fields in the secondary analysis. We performed meta-analyses by using a bivariate model to estimate and compare summary sensitivities and specificities.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies of which nine (410 traumatic pneumothorax patients out of 1271 patients) used patients as the unit of analysis; we thus included them in the primary analysis. The remaining four studies used lung field as the unit of analysis and we included them in the secondary analysis. We judged all studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in one or more domains, with most studies (11/13, 85%) being judged at high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain. There was substantial heterogeneity in the sensitivity of supine CXR amongst the included studies. In the primary analysis, the summary sensitivity and specificity of CUS were 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.94) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); and the summary sensitivity and specificity of supine CXR were 0.47 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.63) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). There was a significant difference in the sensitivity of CUS compared to CXR with an absolute difference in sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61; P < 0.001). In contrast, CUS and CXR had similar specificities: comparing CUS to CXR, the absolute difference in specificity was -0.007 (95% CI -0.018 to 0.005, P = 0.35). The findings imply that in a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients if 30 patients have traumatic pneumothorax (i.e. prevalence of 30%), CUS would miss 3 (95% CI 2 to 4) cases (false negatives) and overdiagnose 1 (95% CI 0 to 2) of those without pneumothorax (false positives); while CXR would miss 16 (95% CI 11 to 21) cases with 0 (95% CI 0 to 2) overdiagnosis of those who do not have pneumothorax.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The diagnostic accuracy of CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians for the diagnosis of pneumothorax in ED trauma patients is superior to supine CXR, independent of the type of trauma, type of CUS operator, or type of CUS probe used. These findings suggest that CUS for the diagnosis of traumatic pneumothorax should be incorporated into trauma protocols and algorithms in future medical training programmes; and that CUS may beneficially change routine management of trauma.
Topics: Bias; Confidence Intervals; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Pneumothorax; Prospective Studies; Radiography, Thoracic; Sensitivity and Specificity; Supine Position; Thoracic Injuries; Ultrasonography; Wounds, Nonpenetrating; Wounds, Penetrating
PubMed: 32702777
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013031.pub2 -
Clinical Medicine (London, England) Jul 2022
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Mediastinal Emphysema; Pneumothorax; SARS-CoV-2; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 36220238
DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.22-4-s51 -
BMJ Case Reports Mar 2021
Topics: Empyema; Empyema, Pleural; Humans; Pneumothorax
PubMed: 33766977
DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2021-242197 -
Medicine Jan 2024Thoracentesis is performed by 4 methods: gravity, manual aspiration, vacuum-bottle suction, and wall suction. This literature review investigates the safety of these... (Review)
Review
Thoracentesis is performed by 4 methods: gravity, manual aspiration, vacuum-bottle suction, and wall suction. This literature review investigates the safety of these techniques and determines if there is significant difference in complication rates. A comprehensive literature search revealed 6 articles studying thoracentesis techniques and their complication rates, reviewing 20,815 thoracenteses: 80 (0.4%) by gravity, 9431 (45.3%) by manual aspiration, 3498 (16.8%) by vacuum-bottle suction, 7580 (36.4%) by wall suction and 226 (1.1%) unspecified. Of the 6 studies, 2 were smaller with 100 and 140 patients respectively. Overall, there was a 4.4% complication rate including hemothoraces, pneumothoraces, re-expansion pulmonary edema (REPE), chest discomfort, bleeding at the site, pain, and vasovagal episodes. The pneumothorax and REPE rate was 2.5%. Sub-analyzed by each method, there was a 47.5% (38/80) complication rate in the gravity group, 1.2% (115/9431) in the manual aspiration group including 0.7% pneumothorax or REPE, 8% (285/3498) in the vacuum-bottle group including 3.7% pneumothorax or REPE, 4% (309/7580) in the wall suction group all of which were either pneumothorax or REPE, and 73% (166/226) in the unspecified group most of which were vasovagal episodes. Procedure duration was less in the suction groups versus gravity drainage. The 2 smaller studies indicated that in the vacuum groups, early procedure termination rate from respiratory failure was significantly higher than non-vacuum techniques. Significant complication rate from thoracentesis by any technique is low. Suction drainage was noted to have a lower procedure time. Symptom-limited thoracentesis is safe using vacuum or wall suction even with large volumes drained. Other factors such as procedure duration, quantity of fluid removed, number of needle passes, patients' BMI, and operator technique may have more of an impact on complication rate than drainage modality. All suction modalities of drainage seem to be safe. Operator technique, attention to symptom development, amount of fluid removed, and intrapleural pressure changes may be important in predicting complication development, and therefore, may be useful in choosing which technique to employ. Specific drainage modes and their complications need to be further studied.
Topics: Humans; Thoracentesis; Pneumothorax; Thoracic Surgical Procedures; Drainage; Suction; Pulmonary Edema; Respiratory Aspiration
PubMed: 38181250
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036850 -
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery Aug 2022Our objective was to report the incidence, management, and outcomes of patients who developed a secondary pneumothorax while admitted for coronavirus disease 2019...
BACKGROUND
Our objective was to report the incidence, management, and outcomes of patients who developed a secondary pneumothorax while admitted for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
A single-institution, retrospective review of patients admitted for COVID-19 with a diagnosis of pneumothorax between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020, was performed. The primary assessment was the incidence of pneumothorax. Secondarily, we analyzed clinical outcomes of patients requiring tube thoracostomy, including those requiring operative intervention.
RESULTS
From March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2020, 118 of 1595 patients (7.4%) admitted for COVID-19 developed a pneumothorax. Of these, 92 (5.8%) required tube thoracostomy drainage for a median of 12 days (interquartile range 5-25 days). The majority of patients (95 of 118, 80.5%) were on mechanical ventilation at the time of pneumothorax, 17 (14.4%) were iatrogenic, and 25 patients (21.2%) demonstrated tension physiology. Placement of a large-bore chest tube (20 F or greater) was associated with fewer tube-related complications than a small-bore tube (14 F or less) (14 vs 26 events, P = .011). Six patients with pneumothorax (5.1%) required operative management for a persistent alveolar-pleural fistula. In patients with pneumothorax, median hospital stay was 36 days (interquartile range 20-63 days) and in-hospital mortality was significantly higher than for those without pneumothorax (58% vs 13%, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of secondary pneumothorax in patients admitted for COVID-19 is 7.4%, most commonly occurring in patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and is associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 58%. Placement of large-bore chest tubes is associated with fewer complications than small-bore tubes.
Topics: COVID-19; Chest Tubes; Drainage; Humans; Incidence; Pneumothorax; Retrospective Studies; Thoracostomy
PubMed: 34481799
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.07.097 -
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms Aug 2023Pneumothorax, the accumulation of air in the pleural cavity, occurs when air enters the pleural space by the pleuro-cutaneous, pleuro-pulmonary, or...
Pneumothorax, the accumulation of air in the pleural cavity, occurs when air enters the pleural space by the pleuro-cutaneous, pleuro-pulmonary, or pleuro-oesophageal-mediastinal route. Tension pneumothorax is an infrequent and severe form of pneumothorax where a positive pressure in the pleural space is built up during at least part of the respiratory cycle, with compression of both lungs and mediastinal vessels, and, if unilateral, with midline deviation towards the unaffected hemithorax. We describe 9 cases of tension pneumothorax in 3 species of small cetaceans (striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba, common dolphin Delphinus delphis, and common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus) from the western Mediterranean coast of Spain, and one case from a dolphinarium. Computed tomography (CT) imaging performed in 2 carcasses before necropsy showed lung compression, midline deviation, and pressure on the diaphragm, which was caudally displaced. Tension pneumothorax was recognized at necropsy by the presence of pressurized air in one of the hemithoraces. Seven of the pneumothorax cases were spontaneous (2 primary and 5 secondary to previous lung pathology). In the other 2 dolphins, the pneumothorax was traumatic, due to oesophageal-pleural perforation or rib fractures. We hypothesize that pneumothorax in dolphins is predominantly tensional because of their specific anatomical and physiological adaptations to marine life and the obligate exposure to extreme pressure changes as diving mammals.
Topics: Animals; Pneumothorax; Stenella; Cetacea; Bottle-Nosed Dolphin; Common Dolphins
PubMed: 37534721
DOI: 10.3354/dao03741 -
Tidsskrift For Den Norske Laegeforening... Apr 2024Pneumothorax following shoulder arthroscopy, although rare, is documented in over 30 PubMed case reports as occurring during or within 10 hours post-procedure.
BACKGROUND
Pneumothorax following shoulder arthroscopy, although rare, is documented in over 30 PubMed case reports as occurring during or within 10 hours post-procedure.
CASE PRESENTATION
A fit septuagenarian underwent a two-hour arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with IV anaesthesia and laryngeal mask airway, without a nerve block. With one hour remaining of the operation, the patient had desaturation and hypotension. Lung sliding was absent on ultrasound and x-ray confirmed left-sided tension pneumothorax. Successful thoracic drain insertion and lung re-expansion facilitated his recovery, allowing discharge after 24 hours and symptom-free status at 6 months.
INTERPRETATION
This case highlights pneumothorax as an uncommon yet possible post-arthroscopic event. The speculated aetiology is the surgical procedure, where pump-induced pressure fluctuations may displace air into surrounding tissue. Instances of pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema without pneumothorax suggest arthroscopic origin of air. Prompt perioperative ultrasound can aid in detecting such critical complications.
Topics: Humans; Pneumothorax; Male; Arthroscopy; Middle Aged; Rotator Cuff Injuries
PubMed: 38651717
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.23.0542 -
Revista Da Sociedade Brasileira de... 2024
Topics: Humans; Pneumothorax; Echinococcosis, Pulmonary; Male; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Adult; Female
PubMed: 38716978
DOI: 10.1590/0037-8682-0116-2023 -
Respiratory Medicine Jan 2021The outpatient management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) is still debated. The risk of a tension pneumothorax is used to justify active treatment like... (Review)
Review
The outpatient management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) is still debated. The risk of a tension pneumothorax is used to justify active treatment like chest-tube drainage, although outpatient management can reduce both the time in hospital and the cost of treatment. It is also likely to be the patient's choice. This report is a reappraisal of the situations for which outpatient management, by monitoring alone, or using minimally invasive techniques, can be considered.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Biopsy, Fine-Needle; Chest Tubes; Conservative Treatment; Cost Savings; Drainage; Humans; Monitoring, Physiologic; Outpatients; Patient Preference; Pneumothorax; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33248364
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106240 -
The Journal of International Medical... Dec 2020Pneumothorax after neurosurgical procedures is very rare and incompletely understood. This study was performed to explore the clinical characteristics and pathogenesis...
OBJECTIVE
Pneumothorax after neurosurgical procedures is very rare and incompletely understood. This study was performed to explore the clinical characteristics and pathogenesis of pneumothorax after neurosurgery.
METHODS
We retrospectively evaluated patients admitted from December 2016 to April 2019 for treatment of spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage. The inclusion criteria were neurosurgical procedures (open surgeries or endovascular intervention) performed under general anesthesia, no performance of central venous puncture during surgery, and occurrence of pneumothorax immediately after the neurosurgical procedure.
RESULTS
Eight patients developed pneumothorax after neurosurgical procedures for spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage under general anesthesia. Of the eight patients, seven had aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and one had left temporal-parietal hemorrhage. The lung injury prediction score (LIPS) was 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9.5 in three, one, two, one, and one patient, respectively. During the operation, volume-controlled ventilation (tidal volume, 8-10 mL/kg) was selected for all patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Neurogenic pulmonary edema, inappropriate mechanical ventilation, and stimulation by endotracheal intubation might conjointly contribute to postoperative pneumothorax. To avoid this rare entity, mechanical ventilation with a low tidal volume or low pressure during general anesthesia should be adopted for patients with hemorrhagic cerebrovascular diseases involving the temporal lobe and a LIPS of >3.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neurosurgical Procedures; Pneumothorax; Respiration, Artificial; Retrospective Studies; Tidal Volume
PubMed: 33290119
DOI: 10.1177/0300060520976496