Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Pigtail Catheter and Chest Tube as the Initial Treatment for Pneumothorax.

Chest 2018 May
BACKGROUND: The optimal initial treatment approach for pneumothorax remains controversial. This systemic review and meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of small-bore pigtail catheter (PC) drainage compared with that of large-bore chest tube (LBCT) drainage as the initial treatment approach for all subtypes of pneumothorax.

METHODS: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials published up to October 9, 2017, that compared PC and LBCT as the initial treatment for pneumothorax. The investigative outcomes included success rates, recurrence rates, complication rates, drainage duration, and hospital stay.

RESULTS: Of the 11 included studies (875 patients), the success rate was similar in the PC (79.84%) and LBCT (82.87%) groups, with a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.05; I2  = 0%). Specifically, PC drainage was associated with a significantly lower complication rate following spontaneous pneumothorax than LBCT drainage (Peto odds ratio: 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.85]; I2  = 29%). In the spontaneous subgroup, PC drainage was associated with a significantly shorter drainage duration (mean difference, -1.51 [95% CI, -2.93 to -0.09]) and hospital stay (mean difference: -2.54 [95% CI, -3.16 to -1.92]; P < .001) than the LBCT group.

CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, results of the meta-analysis suggest PC drainage may be considered as the initial treatment option for patients with primary or secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. Ideally, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare PC vs LBCT among different subgroups of patients with pneumothorax, which may ultimately improve clinical care and management for these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRY: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42017078481; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app