4.6 Article

Can chest ultrasonography assess pleurodesis after VATS for spontaneous pneumothorax?

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 47-49

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.02.038

Keywords

chest ultrasonography; spontaneous pneumothorax; video-assisted thoracoscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Thoracic echography easily detects the sign of 'pleural sliding', due to the movement of the visceral pleura on the parietal pleura. This sign is absent when pleurodesis is present. This study was designed to test thoracic echography in the assessment of difference in pleurodesis obtained after abrasion or pleurectomy performed for spontaneous pneumothorax, mainly based on the presence or absence of the 'pleural sliding' sign. Methods: The population was composed by 10 patients, 5 submitted to VATS complete pleurectomy and 5 to VATS pleural. abrasion. Thoracic ultrasonography was performed 4-6 weeks after surgery by an anesthesist trained in thoracic echography blinded to the pteurodesis technique used. Pteurodesis was defined as excellent if pleural sliding was absent in all the 9 considered points, effective when it was present in less than 3 points, poor when it was present in 3 points or more. Results: Pteurodesis was excellent in all. the pteurectomy patients and in 1 abrasion patient. In one case, pleural sliding was present at one single explored point and in the last 3 cases there were two contiguous points of pleural sliding. Interestingly, one of these patients developed partial recurrence of pneumothorax 3 weeks after echography exactly at the level of recorded pleural. sliding. Conclusions: Thoracic echography for the postoperative evaluation of pleurodesis is feasible and simple. An ideal. pteurodesis is more likely after pteurectomy than after pleural abrasion. Areas of persisting pleural. sliding are probably at risk of recurrence. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available