Department of Emergency, the Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310009, China.
J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2012 Jan;13(1):43-8. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B1100161.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the treatment of traumatic hemothorax by closed pleural drainage using a central venous catheter (CVC), compared with using a conventional chest tube.
A prospective controlled study with the Ethics Committee approval was undertaken. A total of 407 patients with traumatic hemothorax were involved and they were randomly assigned to undergo closed pleural drainage with CVCs (n=214) or conventional chest tubes (n=193). The Seldinger technique was used for drainage by CVC, and the conventional technique for drainage by chest tube. If the residual volume of the hemothorax was less than 200 ml after the daily volume of drainage decreased to below 100 ml for two consecutive days, the treatment was considered successful. The correlative data of efficacy and safety between the two groups were analyzed using t or chi-squared tests with SPSS 13.0. A P value of less than 0.05 was taken as indicating statistical significance.
Compared with the chest tube group, the operation time, fraction of analgesic treatment, time of surgical wound healing, and infection rate of surgical wounds were significantly decreased (P<0.05) in the CVC group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the success rate of treatment and the incidence of serious complications (P>0.05), or in the mean catheter/tube indwelling time and mean medical costs of patients treated successfully (P>0.05).
Management of medium or large traumatic hemothoraxes by closed thoracic drainage using CVC is minimally invasive and as effective as using a conventional large-bore chest tube. Its complications can be prevented and it has the potential to replace the large-bore chest tube.
评价中心静脉导管(CVC)闭式引流治疗创伤性血胸的疗效和安全性,并与传统胸腔引流管进行比较。
前瞻性对照研究,经伦理委员会批准,纳入 407 例创伤性血胸患者,随机分为 CVC 闭式引流组(n=214)和传统胸腔引流管组(n=193)。CVC 引流采用 Seldinger 技术,传统胸腔引流管采用常规技术。如果每日引流量减少至 100ml 以下且连续 2 天残血量小于 200ml,则认为治疗成功。采用 SPSS 13.0 统计软件进行 t 检验或卡方检验,比较两组疗效和安全性的相关性数据,P<0.05 为差异有统计学意义。
与传统胸腔引流管组相比,CVC 组操作时间、镇痛治疗比例、手术切口愈合时间和手术切口感染率显著降低(P<0.05)。两组治疗成功率和严重并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),以及成功治疗患者的平均导管/管留置时间和平均医疗费用差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
CVC 闭式引流治疗中大量创伤性血胸微创,与传统大口径胸腔引流管疗效相当。可预防并发症,有替代大口径胸腔引流管的潜力。