ArticleInjury2017
Visually guided tube thoracostomy insertion comparison to standard of care in a large animal model.
Article in Injury, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of a novel, endoscopic chest tube insertion technique versus the standard, open technique performed by novice users in a human cadaver model: a randomized, crossover, assessor-blinded study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2018Trial
- External Validation of a Tube Thoracostomy Complication Classification System.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
- Tube Thoracostomy Complications: More to Learn: Reply.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTube thoracostomy (TT) is a lifesaving procedure for a variety of thoracic pathologies. The most commonly utilized method for placement involves open dissection and blind insertion. Image guided placement is commonly utilized but is limited by an inability to see distal placement location. Unfortunately, TT is not without complications. We aim to demonstrate the feasibility of a disposable device to allow for visually directed TT placement compared to the standard of care in a large animal model.
methodsThree swine were sequentially orotracheally intubated and anesthetized. TT was conducted utilizing a novel visualization device, tube thoracostomy visual trocar (TTVT) and standard of care (open technique). Position of the TT in the chest cavity were recorded using direct thoracoscopic inspection and radiographic imaging with the operator blinded to results. Complications were evaluated using a validated complication grading system. Standard descriptive statistical analyses were performed.
resultsThirty TT were placed, 15 using TTVT technique, 15 using standard of care open technique. All of the TT placed using TTVT were without complication and in optimal position. Conversely, 27% of TT placed using standard of care open technique resulted in complications. Necropsy revealed no injury to intrathoracic organs.
conclusionVisual directed TT placement using TTVT is feasible and non-inferior to the standard of care in a large animal model. This improvement in instrumentation has the potential to greatly improve the safety of TT. Further study in humans is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II.
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.