{"title":"Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Portable Small-Bore Chest Tube (Thoracic Egg Catheter) in Spontaneous Pneumothorax.","authors":"Hyon Keun Joh, Duk Hwan Moon, Sungsoo Lee","doi":"10.5090/kjtcs.2020.53.2.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary spontaneous pneumothorax is commonly treated with chest tube insertion, which requires hospitalization. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy, costs, and benefits of a portable small-bore chest tube (Thoracic Egg; Sumitomo Bakelite Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) compared with a conventional chest tube.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed all primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients who underwent treatment at Gangnam Severance Hospital between August 2014 and May 2018.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 279 patients were divided into 2 groups: the conventional group (n=236) and the Thoracic Egg group (n=43). Of the 236 patients in the conventional group, 100 were excluded because they underwent surgery during the study period. The efficacy and cost were compared between the 2 groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding recurrence (conventional group, 36 patients [26.5%]; Thoracic Egg group, 15 patients [29.4%]; p=0.287). However, the Egg group had statistically significantly lower mean medical expenses than the conventional group (433,413 Korean won and 522,146 Korean won, respectively; p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although portable small-bore chest tubes may not be significantly more efficacious than conventional chest tubes, their use is significantly less expensive. We believe that the Thoracic Egg catheter could be a less costly alternative to conventional chest tube insertion.</p>","PeriodicalId":38678,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","volume":"53 2","pages":"49-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2f/eb/kjtcv-53-049.PMC7155180.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2020.53.2.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Background: Primary spontaneous pneumothorax is commonly treated with chest tube insertion, which requires hospitalization. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy, costs, and benefits of a portable small-bore chest tube (Thoracic Egg; Sumitomo Bakelite Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) compared with a conventional chest tube.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients who underwent treatment at Gangnam Severance Hospital between August 2014 and May 2018.
Results: A total of 279 patients were divided into 2 groups: the conventional group (n=236) and the Thoracic Egg group (n=43). Of the 236 patients in the conventional group, 100 were excluded because they underwent surgery during the study period. The efficacy and cost were compared between the 2 groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding recurrence (conventional group, 36 patients [26.5%]; Thoracic Egg group, 15 patients [29.4%]; p=0.287). However, the Egg group had statistically significantly lower mean medical expenses than the conventional group (433,413 Korean won and 522,146 Korean won, respectively; p<0.001).
Conclusion: Although portable small-bore chest tubes may not be significantly more efficacious than conventional chest tubes, their use is significantly less expensive. We believe that the Thoracic Egg catheter could be a less costly alternative to conventional chest tube insertion.