Observational studyYonsei medical journal2013
The frequency of reexpansion pulmonary edema after trocar and hemostat assisted thoracostomy in patients with spontaneous pneumothorax.
Observational study in Yonsei medical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Severe Respiratory and Hemodynamic Failures following Successful Spontaneous Pneumothorax Drainage.Case reports in emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Bilateral re-expansion pulmonary edema: an uncommon complication of the pneumothorax drainage.Archive of clinical cases · 2020Article
- Radiographically Severe but Clinically Mild Reexpansion Pulmonary Edema following Decompression of a Spontaneous Pneumothorax.Case reports in pulmonology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSeveral risk factors for development of reexpansion pulmonary edema (REPE) after drainage of pneumothoraces have been reported, but the association between the method of thoracostomy and the development of REPE is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the frequency of REPE after treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax with trocar or hemostat assisted closed thoracostomy. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a prospective, observational study including 173 patients with spontaneous pneumothorax who visited the emergency department from January 2007 to December 2008. In 2007, patients were treated with hemostat-assisted drainage, whereas patients in 2008 were treated with trocar-assisted drainage. The main outcome was the development of REPE, determined by computed tomography of the chest 8 hours after closed thoracostomy. Outcomes in both groups were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses.
resultsNinety-two patients were included, 48 (42 males) of which underwent hemostat-assisted drainage and 44 (41 males) underwent trocar-assisted drainage. The groups were similar in mean age (24 ± 10 vs. 26 ± 14 respectively). The frequencies of REPE after hemostat- and trocar-assisted drainage were 63% (30 patients) and 86% (38 patients) respectively (p=0.009). In multivariate analysis, trocar-assisted drainage was the major contributing factor for developing REPE (odds ratio=5.7, 95% confidence interval, 1.5-21). Age, gender, size of pneumothorax, symptom duration and laboratory results were similar between the groups.
conclusionClosed thoracostomy using a trocar is associated with an increased risk of REPE compared with hemostat- assisted drainage in patients with spontaneous pneumothorax.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.