Research Article

Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions

Volume: 71 Number: 2 October 10, 2018
EN TR

Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of our current study was to compare the chest tube and intrapleural catheter applied for non-malignant pleural effusions. Materials and Methods: Between March 2016 and April 2017, 33 patients with pleural effusion but bearing no history of malignancy were accepted to the study. After pathological examination of the effusions, the cases diagnosed as malignant pleural effusion were excluded. Twenty eight French chest tubes and 8 French intrapleural catheters (B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany) were applied for drainage. The patients were evaluated in terms of age, gender, the etiology of the effusion, the side of the procedure, the amount of drainage, length of in-hospital stay, the level of pain and complications. The pain level was calculated using Visual Analogue scale (VAS). The data was evaluated statistically by Mann-Whitney U test. A p value <0.05 was accepted as being statistically significant. Results: Among 20 male (61%) and 13 female (39%) patients, we applied chest tube in 14 (42%) and intrapleural catheter in 19 (58%) cases. Mean age of our patients was calculated as 66.8 (range: 28-93) years. The procedures were performed at right side in 20 (61%) and at left side in 13 (39%) cases. The mean drainage amount was calculated as 2219 (range: 500-4700) mL. Fourteen cases (42%) had parapneumonic effusions while the cause of the effusions were heart failure in 15 (45%) and renal failure in 4 (13%) cases. The mean duration of in-hospital stay was 4.93 days after chest tube application and 3.05 days for the patients treated with intrapleural catheter. The mean pain level calculated by VAS was 6.21 in chest tube group and 3.94 in intrapleural catheter group, respectively. One patient treated with chest tube suffered intercostal artery injury. When two groups were statistically analysed, significant difference was calculated for time of in-hospital stay (p=0.0013) and level of pain (p<0.00001) in favour of pleural catheters. Conclusion: The application of intrapleural catheter is may be preferred as a safe and comfortable treatment method in benign pleural effusions because it causes less pain and shortens in-hospital stay

Keywords

Benign Pleural Effusion, Tube Thoracostomy, Chest Tube, Intrapleural Catheter

Ethical Statement

Ethics Committee Approval: This was study Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University Ethics Committee approved (project no: 2017/123-001). Informed Consent: It was taken. Financial Disclosure: The author declared that this study received no financial support.

References

  1. 1. Gotsman I, Fridlender Z, Meirovitz A, et al. The Evaluation Of Pleural Effusions In Patients With Heart Failure. Am J Med 2001;111:375-378.
  2. 2. Kurkcuoglu C, Karaoglanoglu N, Eroglu A, et al. Videothoracoscopy For Pleural Effusion: A Review Of 47 Cases. Turkish J Thorac and Cardiovasc Surg 2000;8:712-714.
  3. 3. Munnell ER. Thoracic Drainage. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63:1497-1502.
  4. 4. Clementsen P, Evald T, Grode G, et al. Treatment Of Malignant Pleural Effusion: Pleurodesis Using A Small Percutaneous Catheter. A Prospective Randomized Study. Respir Med 1998;92:593-596.
  5. 5. Bediwy AS, Amer HG. Pigtail Catheter Use For Draining Pleural Effusions Of Various Etiologies. Pulmonology 2012:1-6.
  6. 6. Parulekar W, Di Primio G, Matzinger F, et al. Use Of Small-bore vs Largebore Chest Tubes For Treatment Of Malignant Pleural Effusions. Chest 2001;120:19-25.
  7. 7. Kesieme E, Dongo A, Ezemba N, et al. Tube Thoracostomy: Complications And Its Management. Pulm Med 2012;2012:256878.
  8. 8. Roberts JS, Bratton SL, Brogan TV. Efficacy And Complications Of Percutaneous Pigtail Catheters For Thoracostomy In Pediatric Patients. Chest 1998;114:1116-1121.
  9. 9. Liu YH, Lin YC, Liang SJ, et al. Ultrasound-guided Pigtail Catheters For Drainage Of Various Pleural Diseases. Am J Emerg Med 2010;28:915-921.
  10. 10. Gammie JS, Banks MC, Fuhrman CR, et al. The Pigtail Catheter For Pleural Drainage: A Less Invasive Alternative To Tube Thoracostomy. JSL 1999;3:57-61.Murat Sarıçam Drainage of Benign Pleural Effusions RET
APA
Sarıçam, M. (2018). Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası, 71(2), 162-165. https://doi.org/10.4274/atfm.65375
AMA
1.Sarıçam M. Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası. 2018;71(2):162-165. doi:10.4274/atfm.65375
Chicago
Sarıçam, Murat. 2018. “Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions”. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası 71 (2): 162-65. https://doi.org/10.4274/atfm.65375.
EndNote
Sarıçam M (October 1, 2018) Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası 71 2 162–165.
IEEE
[1]M. Sarıçam, “Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions”, Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 162–165, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.4274/atfm.65375.
ISNAD
Sarıçam, Murat. “Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions”. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası 71/2 (October 1, 2018): 162-165. https://doi.org/10.4274/atfm.65375.
JAMA
1.Sarıçam M. Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası. 2018;71:162–165.
MLA
Sarıçam, Murat. “Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions”. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası, vol. 71, no. 2, Oct. 2018, pp. 162-5, doi:10.4274/atfm.65375.
Vancouver
1.Murat Sarıçam. Comparision of Chest Tube and Intrapleural Catheter Applied for Benign Pleural Effusions. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası. 2018 Oct. 1;71(2):162-5. doi:10.4274/atfm.65375