4.1 Article

Pre-hospital and in-hospital thoracostomy: indications and complications

期刊

出版社

ROYAL COLL SURGEONS ENGLAND
DOI: 10.1308/003588408X242286

关键词

trauma; thoracostomy; chest injury

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION Pleural drainage with chest tube insertion for thoracic trauma is a common and often life-saving technique. Although considered a simple procedure, complication rates have been reported to be 2-25%. We conducted a prospective cohort observational study of emergency pleural drainage procedures to validate the indications for pre-hospital thoracostomy and to identify complications from both pre- and in-hospital thoracostomies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were collected over a 7-month period on all patients receiving either pre-hospital thoracostomy or emergency department tube thoracostomy. Outcome measures were appropriate indications, errors in tube placement and subsequent complications. RESULTS Ninety-one chest tubes were placed into 52 patients. Sixty-five thoracostomies were performed in the field without chest tube placement. Twenty-six procedures were performed following emergency department identification of thoracic injury. Of the 65 pre-hospital thoracostomies, 40 (61%) were for appropriate indications of suspected tension pneumothorax or a low output state. The overall complication rate was 14% of which 9% were classified as major and three patients required surgical intervention. Twenty-eight (31%) chest tubes were poorly positioned and 15 (17%) of these required repositioning. CONCLUSIONS Pleural drainage techniques may be complicated and have the potential to cause life-threatening injury. Prehospital thoracostomies have the same potential risks as in-hospital procedures and attention must be paid to insertion techniques under difficult scene conditions. In-hospital chest tube placement complication rates remain uncomfortably high, and attention must be placed on training and assessment of staff in this basic procedure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据