Home | About us | Editorial Board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionContact Us   |  Subscribe   |  Advertise   |  Login  Page layout
Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout
Lung India Official publication of Indian Chest Society  
  Users Online: 1083   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 38  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 31-35

Small-bore catheter is more than an alternative to the ordinary chest tube for pleural drainage


1 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt; King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraydah, Qassim, Saudi Arabia
2 King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraydah, Qassim, Saudi Arabia; Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Abdel-Mohsen Mahmoud Hamad
Department of Thoracic Surgery, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraydah, Qassim

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_44_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: Pleural collection is a common medical problem. For decades, the chest tube of different designs was the commonly used toll for pleural drainage. Over the past few years, small-bore catheter (SBC) has gained more popularity. We present our experience of using SBCs for the drainage of pleural collection of different etiologies. Patients and Methods: A total of 398 small-bore pleural catheters were inserted in 369 patients with pleural collection during the period from January 2013 to October 2019. Data were collected regarding the efficacy of drainage, experienced chest pain, duration of drainage, and the occurrence of complications. Results: Malignant associated (59.24%) and parapneumonic (19.57%) effusions constituted the most common causes. The drainage was successful in 382/398 (95.98%) occasions; six cases had incomplete fluid evacuation that required decortications; five cases (1.26%) had nonexpendable lung. Catheter reinsertion was needed due to dislodgment in 2 (0.50%) cases and obstruction in 3 (0.75%) cases. Sixty-two cases (15.58%) experienced chest pain. No patient developed empyema or cellulites at the site of catheter insertion. The duration of drainage ranged from 2 to 7 days, with an average of 3.5 days. Conclusions: SBC is equivalent to conventional chest tube for the drainage of pleural collection. Moreover, it has the advantages of less associated pain, versatility of insertion site, and relative safety of the technique in some risky and difficult situations.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed226    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded66    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal