A Randomized Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial of 14Fr Thal versus 28Fr Tube Thoracostomy for Traumatic Hemothorax.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY American Surgeon Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1177/00031348241308907
Jason McCartt, Samuel Wade Ross, Kyle W Cunningham, Huaping Wang, Leslie Sealey, Julia Brake, Ashley Christmas, Gaurav Sachdev, John Green, Bradley W Thomas
{"title":"A Randomized Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial of 14Fr Thal versus 28Fr Tube Thoracostomy for Traumatic Hemothorax.","authors":"Jason McCartt, Samuel Wade Ross, Kyle W Cunningham, Huaping Wang, Leslie Sealey, Julia Brake, Ashley Christmas, Gaurav Sachdev, John Green, Bradley W Thomas","doi":"10.1177/00031348241308907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The traditional treatment of traumatic hemothorax (HTX) is large bore chest tubes (CT) ≥28Fr. Recent evidence shows 14Fr pigtail catheters are as effective in drainage of HTX as larger CT. However, this has not been shown in 14Fr Thal tubes, a straight chest tube placed utilizing Seldinger technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single center, prospective randomized controlled trial was performed at an ACS verified Level 1 trauma center comparing 14Fr Thal CT (14CT) to 28Fr CT (28CT) between May 2017 and September 2021. The primary outcome was failure of drainage of hemothorax requiring additional intervention. Secondary outcomes included duration of chest tube placement, length of stay, tube-specific complications, and 90-day hospital readmission. Farrington-Manning approach was used for non-inferiority tests. Wilcoxon 2-samples test or <i>t</i> test was used for continuous variables, and Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>109 patients were included in the randomized trial. There were 54 patients in the 14CT cohort, and 55 patients in the 28CT cohort. The primary outcome of drainage failure was similar between groups (8.3% 14CT vs 3.9% 28CT). Using a 15% non-inferiority margin 14CT is non-inferior to 28CT. No differences were identified in secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>14Fr Thal tubes have similar efficacy in drainage of traumatic hemothorax when compared with 28Fr chest tubes with similar complication rates (NCT03167723).</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"31348241308907"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241308907","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The traditional treatment of traumatic hemothorax (HTX) is large bore chest tubes (CT) ≥28Fr. Recent evidence shows 14Fr pigtail catheters are as effective in drainage of HTX as larger CT. However, this has not been shown in 14Fr Thal tubes, a straight chest tube placed utilizing Seldinger technique.

Methods: A single center, prospective randomized controlled trial was performed at an ACS verified Level 1 trauma center comparing 14Fr Thal CT (14CT) to 28Fr CT (28CT) between May 2017 and September 2021. The primary outcome was failure of drainage of hemothorax requiring additional intervention. Secondary outcomes included duration of chest tube placement, length of stay, tube-specific complications, and 90-day hospital readmission. Farrington-Manning approach was used for non-inferiority tests. Wilcoxon 2-samples test or t test was used for continuous variables, and Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables.

Results: 109 patients were included in the randomized trial. There were 54 patients in the 14CT cohort, and 55 patients in the 28CT cohort. The primary outcome of drainage failure was similar between groups (8.3% 14CT vs 3.9% 28CT). Using a 15% non-inferiority margin 14CT is non-inferior to 28CT. No differences were identified in secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: 14Fr Thal tubes have similar efficacy in drainage of traumatic hemothorax when compared with 28Fr chest tubes with similar complication rates (NCT03167723).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
14Fr Thal与28Fr管开胸术治疗外伤性血胸的随机非效性临床试验
背景:外伤性血胸(HTX)的传统治疗是大口径胸管(CT)≥28Fr。最近的证据表明,14Fr细尾导管在HTX引流中与大CT一样有效。然而,在使用Seldinger技术放置的直胸管14Fr Thal管中并未出现这种情况。方法:2017年5月至2021年9月,在ACS认证的一级创伤中心进行单中心前瞻性随机对照试验,比较14Fr Thal CT (14CT)和28Fr CT (28CT)。主要结局是血胸引流失败,需要额外干预。次要结局包括胸管放置时间、住院时间、管特异性并发症和90天再入院。非劣效性检验采用Farrington-Manning方法。连续变量采用Wilcoxon 2-样本检验或t检验,分类变量采用Pearson卡方检验或Fisher精确检验。结果:109例患者纳入随机试验。14CT组54例,28CT组55例。两组间引流失败的主要结局相似(8.3% 14CT vs 3.9% 28CT)。使用15%的非劣效边缘,14CT不劣于28CT。在次要结局方面没有发现差异。结论:14Fr胸管引流外伤性血胸的效果与28Fr胸管引流效果相近,并发症发生率相近(NCT03167723)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Surgeon
American Surgeon 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
623
期刊介绍: The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.
期刊最新文献
Inpatient Cost of Trauma Care Versus Repair of Elective Open Inguinal Hernias: Nationwide Trends Over Nearly a Decade. Axilla Management in Breast Cancer Surgery: Brief Review and Current Practice Recommendations. Paramedic Judgment as a Basis for Trauma Triage: Is it an Effective Strategy? Mental Practice, Visualization, and Mental Imagery in Surgery: a Systematic Review. Expression of Concern.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1