A Comparative Study of Two Small-Bore Pleural Drainage Systems
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Clinical Study
VOLUME: 4 ISSUE: 2
P: 70 - 75
August 2003

A Comparative Study of Two Small-Bore Pleural Drainage Systems

1. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Başkent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
2. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara
3. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Başkent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
No information available.
No information available
Accepted Date: 10.10.2021
Online Date: 10.10.2021
Publish Date: 10.10.2021
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

Abstract

The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of a closed drainage system (a bedside procedure) to that of an ultra­sound-guided drainage system. 29 patients with pleural effu­sion were randomly assigned to undergo either ultrasound- guided small-bore pleural catheter placement (Pigtail® group, n=15) or catheter placement without ultrasound-guidance (Pleuracan® group, n=14). Data on indications for tube place­ment, drainage volume, mean duration of catheter stay, com­plications, and effectiveness of drainage were collected. Findings for the two groups were compared. The Pleuracan® group included 9 males and 5 females (mean age: 59.2±23.4 years), the Pigtail® group included 10 males and 5 females (mean age: 49.4±22.5 years). There were no statistically sig­nificant differences between the groups regarding sex distrib­ution, age or catheter calibers used. The most common diag­nosis was complicated parapneumonic effusion (34%). The other indications for tube placement were malignancy (21%), hemorrhagic effusion (21%), transudate (21%) and hemotho­rax (3%). The patients with Pleuracan® catheters showed The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of a closed drainage system (a bedside procedure) to that of an ultra­sound-guided drainage system. 29 patients with pleural effu­sion were randomly assigned to undergo either ultrasound- guided small-bore pleural catheter placement (Pigtail® group, n=15) or catheter placement without ultrasound-guidance (Pleuracan® group, n=14). Data on indications for tube place­ment, drainage volume, mean duration of catheter stay, com­plications, and effectiveness of drainage were collected. Findings for the two groups were compared. The Pleuracan® group included 9 males and 5 females (mean age: 59.2±23.4 years), the Pigtail® group included 10 males and 5 females (mean age: 49.4±22.5 years). There were no statistically sig­nificant differences between the groups regarding sex distrib­ution, age or catheter calibers used. The most common diag­nosis was complicated parapneumonic effusion (34%). The other indications for tube placement were malignancy (21%), hemorrhagic effusion (21%), transudate (21%) and hemotho­rax (3%). The patients with Pleuracan® catheters showed small-diameter tubes are as safe as ultrasound-guided sys­tems.

Keywords:
small-bore catheter, pleural effusion, therapeutic thoracentesis