Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 62(06): 516-520
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1374650
Original Thoracic
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Outcomes of Outpatient Treatment for Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax Using a Small-Bore Portable Thoracic Drainage Device

Takahiro Karasaki
1   Department of Thoracic Surgery, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
3   Department of Surgery, Asahi General Hospital, Asahi, Japan
,
Shizuya Shintomi
2   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Yukihiro Nomura
3   Department of Surgery, Asahi General Hospital, Asahi, Japan
,
Nobutaka Tanaka
3   Department of Surgery, Asahi General Hospital, Asahi, Japan
,
Haruhisa Saito
4   Department of Respiratory Medicine, Asahi General Hospital, Asahi, Japan
,
Yukihiro Yoshida
3   Department of Surgery, Asahi General Hospital, Asahi, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

07 January 2014

27 February 2014

Publication Date:
29 May 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background There is no consensus regarding the initial intervention for primary spontaneous pneumothorax. We report the outcomes of outpatient treatment for primary spontaneous pneumothorax using a portable thoracic drainage device.

Patients and Methods Between April 2007 and December 2011, 99 consecutive patients with a first episode of primary spontaneous pneumothorax were indicated for insertion of a portable thoracic drainage device. All patients were treated with a small-bore portable thoracic drainage device that consists of a flexible 9F silicone catheter with one-way valves and a small plastic chamber. Successful treatment was defined as when the pneumothorax was resolved after the insertion of a portable thoracic drainage device solely on an outpatient basis. Demographic data and treatment outcomes were obtained by a retrospective chart review.

Results Ninety-seven patients (98%) with a first primary spontaneous pneumothorax were discharged from the emergency department after insertion of a portable thoracic drainage device. Ninety-three patients (94%) resolved with outpatient treatment. The median duration of portable thoracic drainage device insertion was 4 days (range, 0–33 days). The recurrence rate after treatment with a portable thoracic drainage device was 34% (32/93). There were two infections (2.0%), two instances of hemothoraces (2.0%), and one severe discomfort at the insertion site (1.0%). There were no cases of tension pneumothorax or reexpansion edema.

Conclusion Outpatient treatment for primary spontaneous pneumothorax using a portable thoracic drainage device had a high success rate with few serious complications and an acceptable recurrence rate.

Keywords

pneumothorax - quality of life - outcomes
 

  • References

  • 1 Gupta D, Hansell A, Nichols T, Duong T, Ayres JG, Strachan D. Epidemiology of pneumothorax in England. Thorax 2000; 55 (8) 666-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cran IR, Rumball CA. Survey of spontaneous pneumothoraces in the Royal Air Force. Thorax 1967; 22 (5) 462-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Baumann MH, Strange C, Heffner JE , et al; AACP Pneumothorax Consensus Group. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: an American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement. Chest 2001; 119 (2) 590-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 MacDuff A, Arnold A, Harvey J ; BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010. Thorax 2010; 65 (Suppl. 02) ii18-ii31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 De Leyn P, Lismonde M, Ninane V , et al. Guidelines Belgian Society of Pneumology. Guidelines on the management of spontaneous pneumothorax. Acta Chir Belg 2005; 105 (3) 265-267
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fysh ET, Smith NA, Lee YC. Optimal chest drain size: the rise of the small-bore pleural catheter. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 31 (6) 760-768
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ho KK, Ong ME, Koh MS, Wong E, Raghuram J. A randomized controlled trial comparing minichest tube and needle aspiration in outpatient management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Am J Emerg Med 2011; 29 (9) 1152-1157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lai SM, Tee AK. Outpatient treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax using a small-bore chest drain with a Heimlich valve: the experience of a Singapore emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med 2012; 19 (6) 400-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kurihara M, Kataoka H, Ishikawa A, Endo R. Latest treatments for spontaneous pneumothorax. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 58 (3) 113-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lee S, Park SY, Bae MK , et al. Efficacy of polyglycolic acid sheet after thoracoscopic bullectomy for spontaneous pneumothorax. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95 (6) 1919-1923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hassani B, Foote J, Borgundvaag B. Outpatient management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax in the emergency department of a community hospital using a small-bore catheter and a Heimlich valve. Acad Emerg Med 2009; 16 (6) 513-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Baumann MH, Strange C. Treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax: a more aggressive approach?. Chest 1997; 112 (3) 789-804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sawada S, Watanabe Y, Moriyama S. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for primary spontaneous pneumothorax: evaluation of indications and long-term outcome compared with conservative treatment and open thoracotomy. Chest 2005; 127 (6) 2226-2230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cardillo G, Facciolo F, Giunti R , et al. Videothoracoscopic treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: a 6-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 69 (2) 357-361 , discussion 361–362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Yabuki H, Tabata T, Sugawara T, Fukaya K, Fujimura S. The influence of difference of surgical procedure for the young spontaneous pneumothorax to the recurrence rate after surgery [in Japanese]. Kyobu Geka 2013; 66 (12) 1033-1040
    PubMedGoogle Scholar