Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, 1501 North Campbell Avenue, Room 5411, PO Box 245063, Tucson, Arizona 85724-5063, USA.
Br J Surg. 2014 Jan;101(2):17-22. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9377.
Small pigtail catheters appear to work as well as the traditional large-bore chest tubes in patients with traumatic pneumothorax, but it is not known whether the smaller pigtail catheters are associated with less tube-site pain. This study was conducted to compare tube-site pain following pigtail catheter or chest tube insertion in patients with uncomplicated traumatic pneumothorax.
This prospective randomized trial compared 14-Fr pigtail catheters and 28-Fr chest tubes in patients with traumatic pneumothorax presenting to a level I trauma centre from July 2010 to February 2012. Patients who required emergency tube placement, those who refused and those who could not respond to pain assessment were excluded. Primary outcomes were tube-site pain, as assessed by a numerical rating scale, and total pain medication use. Secondary outcomes included the success rate of pneumothorax resolution and insertion-related complications.
Forty patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics of 20 patients in the pigtail catheter group were similar to those of 20 patients in the chest tube group. No patient had a flail chest or haemothorax. Pain scores related to chest wall trauma were similar in the two groups. Patients with a pigtail catheter had significantly lower mean(s.d.) tube-site pain scores than those with a chest tube, at baseline after tube insertion (3.2(0.6) versus 7.7(0.6); P < 0.001), on day 1 (1.9(0.5) versus 6.2(0.7); P < 0.001) and day 2 (2.1(1.1) versus 5.5(1.0); P = 0.040). The decreased use of pain medication associated with pigtail catheter was not significantly different. The duration of tube insertion, success rate and insertion-related complications were all similar in the two groups.
For patients with a simple, uncomplicated traumatic pneumothorax, use of a 14-Fr pigtail catheter is associated with reduced pain at the site of insertion, with no other clinically important differences noted compared with chest tubes.
NCT01537289 (http://clinicaltrials.gov).
小尾巴导管似乎与传统的大口径胸腔引流管在创伤性气胸患者中同样有效,但目前尚不清楚较小的小尾巴导管是否与较少的导管部位疼痛相关。本研究旨在比较小尾巴导管和胸腔引流管在无并发症创伤性气胸患者中的导管部位疼痛。
本前瞻性随机试验比较了 2010 年 7 月至 2012 年 2 月在一级创伤中心就诊的创伤性气胸患者使用 14Fr 小尾巴导管和 28Fr 胸腔引流管。排除需要紧急置管的患者、拒绝置管的患者和无法进行疼痛评估的患者。主要结局为数字评分量表评估的导管部位疼痛和总疼痛药物使用情况。次要结局包括气胸缓解成功率和置管相关并发症。
共纳入 40 例患者。小尾巴导管组 20 例患者和胸腔引流管组 20 例患者的基线特征相似。无连枷胸或血胸患者。两组患者的胸壁创伤相关疼痛评分相似。使用小尾巴导管的患者在导管插入后的基础水平(3.2[0.6]比 7.7[0.6];P < 0.001)、第 1 天(1.9[0.5]比 6.2[0.7];P < 0.001)和第 2 天(2.1[1.1]比 5.5[1.0];P = 0.040)的平均(标准差)导管部位疼痛评分显著低于使用胸腔引流管的患者。与小尾巴导管相关的疼痛药物使用减少并无显著差异。两组的导管插入时间、成功率和置管相关并发症均相似。
对于简单、无并发症的创伤性气胸患者,使用 14Fr 小尾巴导管可减轻插入部位疼痛,与胸腔引流管相比,无其他临床重要差异。
NCT01537289(http://clinicaltrials.gov)。