Trocar vs. Seldinger small bore pleural drains: does the technique influence the outcomes? A prospective single-centre study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare two positioning techniques of 12-French (Fr) thoracic drains in terms of efficacy, safety, and patient comfort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective, non-randomized, competitive, non-inferiority study comparing the Seldinger vs. Trocar technique. The primary endpoint was an analysis of the factors that led to unsuccessful drainage positioning. Between the two groups, clinical variables, procedure times, pain, and complications were compared.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were enrolled in group 1 (Seldinger) and 45 in group 2 (Trocar). The mean procedural time was 7.93±3.02 min vs. 7.09±3.67 min, respectively (p: 0.33). The mean VAS for procedural pain was 2.22±1.47 vs. 2.80±1.88, p: 0.07, and the mean at day 2 was 3.6±1.2 in the SBWGD group vs. 2.7±1.1 in the Unico Group (p: 0.04). There was no difference in terms of complications, residual effusion, and pneumothorax at the first post-procedural chest X-ray. Four days after the procedure, the drain removal rate was 11.6% in group 1 vs. 25% in group 2 p: 0.063). The chest tube was removed after a mean period of 8.87±7.20 days after resolution of pleural effusion or tube dislodgement (7 cases in group 1 vs. 11 in group 2, p: 0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

The two techniques resulted in comparable pain and complication rates. Both drains are well-tolerated and efficient at draining pleural effusion, with very low rates of complications and failure. We recommend inserting a longer tube for patients who require chest drainage for an extended period of time.