BACKGROUND: The optimal tube size for an emergent thoracostomy for traumatic pneumothorax or hemothorax is unknown. Both small catheter tube thoracostomy and large-bore chest tube thoracostomy have been shown to work for the nonemergent management of patients with traumatic pneumothorax or hemothorax. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of a small chest tube with that of a large tube in emergent thoracostomy due to chest trauma. Our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in clinical outcomes including tube-related complications, the need for additional tube placement, and thoracotomy, with the replacement of large tubes with small tubes. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients with chest trauma requiring tube thoracostomy within the first 2h from arrival at our emergency department over a 7-year period was conducted. Charts were reviewed for demographic data and outcomes including complications and initial drainage output. Small chest tubes (20-22 Fr) were compared with a large tube (28 Fr). Our primary outcome was tube-related complications. Secondary outcomes included additional invasive procedures, such as additional tube insertion and thoracotomy. RESULTS: There were 124 tube thoracostomies (small: 68, large: 56) performed in 116 patients. There were no significant differences between the small- and large-tube groups with regard to age, gender, injury mechanism, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and injury severity score. Both groups were similar in the posterior direction of tube insertion, initial drainage output, and the duration of tube insertion. There was no significant difference in the primary outcomes of tube-related complications, including empyema (small: 1/68 vs. large: 1/56; p=1.000) or retained hemothorax (small: 2/68 vs. large: 2/56; p=1.000). Secondary outcomes, including the need for additional tube placement (small: 2/68 vs. large: 4/56; p=0.408) or thoracotomy (small: 2/68 vs. large: 1/56; p=1.000), were also similar. CONCLUSION: For patients with chest trauma, emergent insertion of 20-22 Fr chest tubes has no difference in the efficacy of drainage, rate of complications, and need for additional invasive procedures compared with a large tube (28 Fr).
BACKGROUND: The optimal tube size for an emergent thoracostomy for traumatic pneumothorax or hemothorax is unknown. Both small catheter tube thoracostomy and large-bore chest tube thoracostomy have been shown to work for the nonemergent management of patients with traumatic pneumothorax or hemothorax. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of a small chest tube with that of a large tube in emergent thoracostomy due to chest trauma. Our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in clinical outcomes including tube-related complications, the need for additional tube placement, and thoracotomy, with the replacement of large tubes with small tubes. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients with chest trauma requiring tube thoracostomy within the first 2h from arrival at our emergency department over a 7-year period was conducted. Charts were reviewed for demographic data and outcomes including complications and initial drainage output. Small chest tubes (20-22 Fr) were compared with a large tube (28 Fr). Our primary outcome was tube-related complications. Secondary outcomes included additional invasive procedures, such as additional tube insertion and thoracotomy. RESULTS: There were 124 tube thoracostomies (small: 68, large: 56) performed in 116 patients. There were no significant differences between the small- and large-tube groups with regard to age, gender, injury mechanism, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and injury severity score. Both groups were similar in the posterior direction of tube insertion, initial drainage output, and the duration of tube insertion. There was no significant difference in the primary outcomes of tube-related complications, including empyema (small: 1/68 vs. large: 1/56; p=1.000) or retained hemothorax (small: 2/68 vs. large: 2/56; p=1.000). Secondary outcomes, including the need for additional tube placement (small: 2/68 vs. large: 4/56; p=0.408) or thoracotomy (small: 2/68 vs. large: 1/56; p=1.000), were also similar. CONCLUSION: For patients with chest trauma, emergent insertion of 20-22 Fr chest tubes has no difference in the efficacy of drainage, rate of complications, and need for additional invasive procedures compared with a large tube (28 Fr).
Authors: A Orlando; J Cordero; M M Carrick; A H Tanner; K Banton; R Vogel; M Lieser; D Acuna; D Bar-Or Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 2.953