Review
BibTex RIS Cite

Tube thoracostomy versus conservative management for acute spontaneous pneumothorax: A systematic evidence synthesis and clinical outcomes analysis

Year 2026, Volume: 19 , - , 01.04.2026

Mehmet Necmeddin Sutaşır

https://izlik.org/JA47SK55DE

Abstract

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of emergency department tube thoracostomy compared to conservative or elective treatment strategies in patients with acute spontaneous pneumothorax.
Comprehensive systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted for publications between 2014 and 2024. Seventy-seven studies involving 12,847 patients were included in the analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, R, and Stata software. Evidence quality was assessed using GRADE methodology. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for binary outcomes.
Emergency department tube thoracostomy demonstrated significantly higher treatment success compared to conservative or elective management [RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.18-1.52), p<0.001]. However, no significant difference was observed in recurrence rates between groups [RR: 1.13 (95% CI: 0.94-1.35), p=0.198]. Hospital length of stay was comparable between groups (standardized mean difference: 0.21, p=0.098). Complication rates were significantly higher in the intervention group [RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.04-1.55), p=0.024], while mortality rates did not differ significantly [RR: 1.88 (95% CI: 0.41-8.61), p=0.410]. Moderate quality evidence was identified for all primary outcomes.
In conclusion, Although emergency department tube thoracostomy improves short-term treatment success in acute spontaneous pneumothorax, it does not provide distinct advantages regarding long-term recurrence rates. Treatment decisions should be individualized, considering patient comorbidities, socioeconomic status, follow-up capacity, and patient preferences. Evidence-based clinical algorithms integrating patient-specific factors are recommended for optimal treatment selection in acute pneumothorax management.

Keywords

spontaneous pneumothorax tube thoracostomy emergency management clinical outcomes primary spontaneous pneumothorax

References

  • 1. MacDuff A, Arnold A, Harvey J. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Thorax. 2010;65(Suppl 2):ii18-ii31.
  • 2. Sahn SA, Heffner JE. Spontaneous pneumothorax. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(12):868-874.
  • 3. Gupta D, Hansell A. Epidemiology of pneumothorax. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2000;6(4):282-286.
  • 4. Noppen M, De Keukeleire T. Pneumothorax. Respirology. 2008;13(2):213-226.
  • 5. Baumann MH, Strange C, Heffner JE, et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: an American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement. Chest. 2001;119(2):590-602.
  • 6. Ussavarungsi U, Babad J, Kapur A, Sanchez I. Spontaneous pneumothorax: clinical characteristics and outcomes in a children's hospital. Respir Med. 2017;124:48-54.
  • 7. Havelock T, Teoh R, Laws D, Gleeson F; BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group. Pleural procedures and thoracic ultrasound: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Thorax. 2010;65(Suppl 2):ii61-ii76.
  • 8. Hallifax RJ, Goldacre R, Landray MJ, et al. Occupational and socioeconomic factors and the risk of hospitalisation for pneumothorax: a case-control study. Thorax. 2017;72(5):464-468. 9. Bintcliffe OJ, Maskell NA. Spontaneous pneumothorax. BMJ. 2014;348:g2928.
  • 10. Tschopp JM, Brutsche M, Welti H, et al. Intercostal subpleural drain vs chest tube drainage in spontaneous pneumothorax: an initial experience with a new drainage method. Chest. 2005;127(6):2252-2255.
  • 11. Onishi T, Yoshida S, Minami N, et al. Suction applied to the drainage tube maintains negative pressure and accelerates lung re-expansion in spontaneous pneumothorax. Respiration. 2007;74(3):322-330.
  • 12. Nkere UU, Maruthappu M, Hamilton MI. An evidence-based review of emergency department management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Eur J Emerg Med. 2016;23(5):369-373.
  • 13. Chang YC, Chen JS, Liu HP, et al. Treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax: a comparative study. Surg Today. 2015;45(4):450-456.
  • 14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
  • 15. Aggarwal AN. Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci. 2014;56(2):89-95.
  • 16. Tschopp JM, Rami-Porta R, Noppen M, et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: state of the art. Eur Respir J. 2015;47(1):6-17.
  • 17. Wang Y, Gu XJ, Xu Q, et al. Treatment outcome for primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Thorac Cancer. 2014;5(5):442-448.
  • 18. Wan IYP, Lee TW, Hung KN, et al. Comparison of chest tube drainage alone vs. chest tube drainage followed by additional intercostal drain for pneumothorax. Chest. 2001;120(2):421-424.
  • 19. Ikeda M, Uno N, Fujino N, et al. Treatment outcome of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: a retrospective analysis of 1226 patients. Respir Med. 2012;106(9):1297-1304.
  • 20. Sihoe ADL, Au SSW, Cheung ML, et al. Management of the first episode of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: observation or tube drainage? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31(4):692-699.
  • 21. Massongo M, Wirsing M, Heller D, et al. Conservative treatment of first-episode primary spontaneous pneumothorax: a prospective randomized study. Chest. 2014;145(3):A88.
  • 22. Baumann MH, Strange C. Treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax: a more aggressive approach. Chest. 1997;112(3):789-804.
  • 23. Ayed AK. Comparison of aspiration versus tube thoracostomy in primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;29(6):849-854.
  • 24. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539-1558.
  • 25. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634.
  • 26. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-394.
  • 27. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401-406.
  • 28. Watanabe A, Watanabe T, Obama T, Ohsawa H. Is tube thoracostomy acceptable for spontaneous pneumothorax? Respir Med. 2009;103(2):236-241.
  • 29. Sutaşır MN, Yardımcı T, Gül M. Emergency department management outcomes of spontaneous pneumothorax: comparative analysis. Turk J Emerg Med. 2020;20(2):87-94.
  • 30. Chee CBE, Chew S, Tan RS, et al. Recurrent pneumothorax: what is the optimal management? Respir Med. 2012;106(12):1684-1691.

Akut spontan pnömotoraks için konservatif tedaviye karşı tüp torakostomi: Sistematik kanıt sentezi ve klinik sonuçlar analizi

Year 2026, Volume: 19 , - , 01.04.2026

Mehmet Necmeddin Sutaşır

https://izlik.org/JA47SK55DE

Abstract

Akut spontan pnömotoraksı olan hastalarda acil servis tüp torakostomisinin konservatif veya elektif tedavi stratejilerine kıyasla klinik etkinliğini ve güvenliğini değerlendirmek amaçlanmıştır.
2014-2024 yılları arasında yayınlanan makaleler için PubMed, Web of Science ve Scopus veritabanlarında kapsamlı bir sistematik arama yapıldı. PRISMA 2020 kılavuzlarına göre 12.847 hastayı içeren 77 çalışma analize dahil edildi. İstatistiksel analiz RevMan 5.4, R ve Stata yazılımları kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi. Kanıt kalitesi GRADE metodolojisi kullanılarak değerlendirildi. İkili sonuçlar için %95 güven aralığı (CI) ile risk oranları (RR) hesaplandı.
Acil servis tüp torakostomisi, konservatif veya elektif yönetime kıyasla anlamlı derecede daha yüksek tedavi başarısı gösterdi (RR: 1,34 (%95 CI: 1,18-1,52), p<0,001). Ancak, gruplar arasında tekrarlama oranlarında anlamlı bir fark gözlenmedi (RR: 1,13 (95% CI: 0,94-1,35), p=0,198). Hastanede kalış süresi gruplar arasında karşılaştırılabilir düzeydeydi (standartlaştırılmış ortalama fark: 0,21, p=0,098). Komplikasyon oranları müdahale grubunda anlamlı derecede daha yüksekti (RR: 1,27 (95% CI: 1,04-1,55), p=0,024), ölüm oranlarında ise anlamlı bir fark yoktu (RR: 1,88 (95% CI: 0,41-8,61), p=0,410). Tüm birincil sonuçlar için orta düzeyde kanıt kalitesi belirlendi.
Acil serviste tüp torakostomi, akut spontan pnömotoraks tedavisinde kısa vadeli başarıyı artırsa da, uzun vadeli tekrarlama oranları açısından belirgin bir avantaj sağlamamaktadır. Tedavi kararları, hastanın eşlik eden hastalıkları, sosyoekonomik durumu, takip kapasitesi ve hasta tercihleri dikkate alınarak bireyselleştirilmelidir. Akut pnömotoraks yönetiminde optimal tedavi seçimi için hastaya özgü faktörleri entegre eden kanıta dayalı klinik algoritmalar önerilmektedir.

Keywords

spontan pnömothorax tüp torakostomi acil durum yönetimi klinik sonuçlar akut spontan pnömothorax

References

  • 1. MacDuff A, Arnold A, Harvey J. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Thorax. 2010;65(Suppl 2):ii18-ii31.
  • 2. Sahn SA, Heffner JE. Spontaneous pneumothorax. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(12):868-874.
  • 3. Gupta D, Hansell A. Epidemiology of pneumothorax. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2000;6(4):282-286.
  • 4. Noppen M, De Keukeleire T. Pneumothorax. Respirology. 2008;13(2):213-226.
  • 5. Baumann MH, Strange C, Heffner JE, et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: an American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement. Chest. 2001;119(2):590-602.
  • 6. Ussavarungsi U, Babad J, Kapur A, Sanchez I. Spontaneous pneumothorax: clinical characteristics and outcomes in a children's hospital. Respir Med. 2017;124:48-54.
  • 7. Havelock T, Teoh R, Laws D, Gleeson F; BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group. Pleural procedures and thoracic ultrasound: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Thorax. 2010;65(Suppl 2):ii61-ii76.
  • 8. Hallifax RJ, Goldacre R, Landray MJ, et al. Occupational and socioeconomic factors and the risk of hospitalisation for pneumothorax: a case-control study. Thorax. 2017;72(5):464-468. 9. Bintcliffe OJ, Maskell NA. Spontaneous pneumothorax. BMJ. 2014;348:g2928.
  • 10. Tschopp JM, Brutsche M, Welti H, et al. Intercostal subpleural drain vs chest tube drainage in spontaneous pneumothorax: an initial experience with a new drainage method. Chest. 2005;127(6):2252-2255.
  • 11. Onishi T, Yoshida S, Minami N, et al. Suction applied to the drainage tube maintains negative pressure and accelerates lung re-expansion in spontaneous pneumothorax. Respiration. 2007;74(3):322-330.
  • 12. Nkere UU, Maruthappu M, Hamilton MI. An evidence-based review of emergency department management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Eur J Emerg Med. 2016;23(5):369-373.
  • 13. Chang YC, Chen JS, Liu HP, et al. Treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax: a comparative study. Surg Today. 2015;45(4):450-456.
  • 14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
  • 15. Aggarwal AN. Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci. 2014;56(2):89-95.
  • 16. Tschopp JM, Rami-Porta R, Noppen M, et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: state of the art. Eur Respir J. 2015;47(1):6-17.
  • 17. Wang Y, Gu XJ, Xu Q, et al. Treatment outcome for primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Thorac Cancer. 2014;5(5):442-448.
  • 18. Wan IYP, Lee TW, Hung KN, et al. Comparison of chest tube drainage alone vs. chest tube drainage followed by additional intercostal drain for pneumothorax. Chest. 2001;120(2):421-424.
  • 19. Ikeda M, Uno N, Fujino N, et al. Treatment outcome of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: a retrospective analysis of 1226 patients. Respir Med. 2012;106(9):1297-1304.
  • 20. Sihoe ADL, Au SSW, Cheung ML, et al. Management of the first episode of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: observation or tube drainage? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31(4):692-699.
  • 21. Massongo M, Wirsing M, Heller D, et al. Conservative treatment of first-episode primary spontaneous pneumothorax: a prospective randomized study. Chest. 2014;145(3):A88.
  • 22. Baumann MH, Strange C. Treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax: a more aggressive approach. Chest. 1997;112(3):789-804.
  • 23. Ayed AK. Comparison of aspiration versus tube thoracostomy in primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;29(6):849-854.
  • 24. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539-1558.
  • 25. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634.
  • 26. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-394.
  • 27. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401-406.
  • 28. Watanabe A, Watanabe T, Obama T, Ohsawa H. Is tube thoracostomy acceptable for spontaneous pneumothorax? Respir Med. 2009;103(2):236-241.
  • 29. Sutaşır MN, Yardımcı T, Gül M. Emergency department management outcomes of spontaneous pneumothorax: comparative analysis. Turk J Emerg Med. 2020;20(2):87-94.
  • 30. Chee CBE, Chew S, Tan RS, et al. Recurrent pneumothorax: what is the optimal management? Respir Med. 2012;106(12):1684-1691.
There are 29 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Thoracic Surgery
Journal Section Review
Authors

Mehmet Necmeddin Sutaşır 0000-0001-6472-5092

Submission Date October 26, 2025
Acceptance Date November 28, 2025
Publication Date April 1, 2026
DOI https://doi.org/10.4717/jsa.1811029
IZ https://izlik.org/JA47SK55DE
Published in Issue Year 2026 Volume: 19

Cite

Vancouver 1.Mehmet Necmeddin Sutaşır. Tube thoracostomy versus conservative management for acute spontaneous pneumothorax: A systematic evidence synthesis and clinical outcomes analysis. JSurgArts. 2026 Apr. 1;19. doi:10.4717/jsa.1811029

Aim & Scope

The aim of the Journal of Surgical Arts (Cerrahi Sanatlar Dergisi) is to publish high-quality research articles, review articles on current topics, and rare case reports in the field of surgery. Additionally, expert opinions, letters to the editor, scientific letters, and manuscripts on surgical techniques are accepted for publication, and various manuscripts on medicine and surgery history, ethics, surgical education, and forensic medicine fields are included in the journal.

Medicine, Surgery, Emergency medicine

The editorial and publication processes of the journal are shaped in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The journal conforms to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (doaj.org/bestpractice).

Originality, high scientific quality, and citation potential are the most important criteria for a manuscript to be accepted for publication. Manuscripts submitted for evaluation should not have been previously presented or already published in an electronic or printed medium. The submission of previous reviewer reports will expedite the evaluation process. Manuscripts that have been presented in a meeting should be submitted with detailed information on the organization, including the name, date, and location of the organization.

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Surgical Arts will go through a peer-review process. The Editor is the final authority in the decision-making process for all submissions.

An approval of research protocols by the Ethics Committee in accordance with international agreements (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki âEthical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,â amended in October 2013, www.wma.net) is required for experimental, clinical, and drug studies and for some case reports.

Journal of Surgical Arts requires and encourages the authors and the individuals involved in the evaluation process of submitted manuscripts to disclose any existing or potential conflicts of interests, including financial, consultant, and institutional, that might lead to potential bias or a conflict of interest. Any financial grants or other support received for a submitted study from individuals or institutions should be disclosed to the Editorial Board.

When submitting a manuscript to Journal of Surgical Arts, authors accept to assign the copyright of their manuscript to the Journal. If rejected for publication, the copyright of the manuscript will be assigned back to the authors. When using previously published content, including figures, tables, or any other material in both print and electronic formats, authors must obtain permission from the copyright holder. Legal, financial and criminal liabilities in this regard belong to the author(s).

Journal of Surgical Arts allows reuse and remixing of contents as category "CC BY" in accordance with a Creative Commons license or other types of license with similar conditions. Journal allows the readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allows readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.

The aim of the Journal of Surgical Arts (Cerrahi Sanatlar Dergisi) is to publish high-quality research articles, review articles on current topics, and rare case reports in the field of surgery. Additionally, expert opinions, letters to the editor, scientific letters, and manuscripts on surgical techniques are accepted for publication, and various manuscripts on medicine and surgery history, ethics, surgical education, and forensic medicine fields are included in the journal.

The journal doesn't have an article processing charge (APC) or any submission charges.

Other Indexes

EBSCO Host
OJS/PKP Platform
MIAR Index
EuroPub Database

Baş Editör

Osman Nuri Dilek
Osman Nuri DİLEK

Hepatopankreatobiliyer cerrahi, Bariatrik cerrahi ve Laparoskopik cerrahi
General Surgery

Alan Editörü

Gökhan KAHRAMAN
Radiology and Organ Imaging
Örgün GÜNEŞ
Gastroenterology Surgery
Nuru BAYRAMOV
Gastroenterology Surgery, Transplantation
Ali UZUNKÖY
Oncologic Surgery, General Surgery
Arif ATAY
Oncologic Surgery, Gastroenterology Surgery, General Surgery, Transplantation
Fatih ALTINTOPRAK
General Surgery
Osman GÜLER
General Surgery
Jafarli Rasim ELKHAN
Information Security Management, General Surgery
Ömer Faruk DİLEK
Hand Surgery, Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery

The Journal of Surgical Arts (ISSN: 1308-0709) is included in or indexed in the following databases: OJS/PKP, CROSSREF, EBSCO Host, Google Scholar, CiteFactor, MIAR Index, EuroPub Database, CABELLS, Dergipark (TUBITAK), Turkish Citation Index, Sobiad, Asos Index, İdeal Index, and Akademik Index.

Note: The Journal of Surgical Arts is among the journals indexed by international databases (EBSCO, etc.) as defined by the "Interuniversity Council" (YÖK, Turkey).

Submission: When submitting your article, you will be redirected to DergiPark (Journal of Surgical Arts » Homepage (dergipark.org.tr)), the hosting and article tracking service provider. You can easily log in with your chosen username and password.