Comparison of methods to quantitate spontaneous pneumothorax - A study from a tertiary care hospital

IF 1 Q4 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Egyptian Journal of Bronchology Pub Date : 2019-07-01 DOI:10.4103/ejb.ejb_93_18
U. Devaraj, P. Ramachandran, U. Krishnaswamy, N. Sinha, G. D'Souza
{"title":"Comparison of methods to quantitate spontaneous pneumothorax - A study from a tertiary care hospital","authors":"U. Devaraj, P. Ramachandran, U. Krishnaswamy, N. Sinha, G. D'Souza","doi":"10.4103/ejb.ejb_93_18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Pneumothorax can present as a respiratory emergency and has varied etiology. However, literature available on assessment and management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) based on radiological quantitation is scarce. This study was undertaken to compare two different methods of quantitating pneumothorax size with that recommended in American Thoracic Society (ATS) guideline on chest radiogram with respect to possible change in management practices. Patients and methods A prospective cohort of adults presenting with spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) over 3 years to Emergency and Pulmonology Department, St John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, was included. Demographic characteristics and clinical presentation were compiled. Management of SP was based on ATS guidelines. PSP size on chest radiogram was requantitated in the included patients using Light’s index and Collin’s method and was compared with that proposed by the ATS guideline. Results Seventy-six participants with SP were studied; their mean age was 43.7 years, with a preponderance of male patients (84.2%). Twenty-four (31.6%) patients had PSP and 52 (68.4%) patients had secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. In PSP, there was poor agreement between various methods of estimating size of pneumothorax on chest radiogram (Kappa statistic=0.23; ICC of 0.263). Three (12.5%) of the 24 incidences of PSP, which were treated conservatively as per ATS guidelines, would have required invasive intervention if Light’s index or the Collin’s formula were taken into consideration. Conclusion There was poor agreement of radiological pneumothorax size estimation by Collin’s, Light’s, and that proposed in the ATS guidelines. Thus, a unified, standardized method of radiological assessment of PSP is required.","PeriodicalId":34128,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Bronchology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Bronchology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejb.ejb_93_18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Pneumothorax can present as a respiratory emergency and has varied etiology. However, literature available on assessment and management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) based on radiological quantitation is scarce. This study was undertaken to compare two different methods of quantitating pneumothorax size with that recommended in American Thoracic Society (ATS) guideline on chest radiogram with respect to possible change in management practices. Patients and methods A prospective cohort of adults presenting with spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) over 3 years to Emergency and Pulmonology Department, St John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, was included. Demographic characteristics and clinical presentation were compiled. Management of SP was based on ATS guidelines. PSP size on chest radiogram was requantitated in the included patients using Light’s index and Collin’s method and was compared with that proposed by the ATS guideline. Results Seventy-six participants with SP were studied; their mean age was 43.7 years, with a preponderance of male patients (84.2%). Twenty-four (31.6%) patients had PSP and 52 (68.4%) patients had secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. In PSP, there was poor agreement between various methods of estimating size of pneumothorax on chest radiogram (Kappa statistic=0.23; ICC of 0.263). Three (12.5%) of the 24 incidences of PSP, which were treated conservatively as per ATS guidelines, would have required invasive intervention if Light’s index or the Collin’s formula were taken into consideration. Conclusion There was poor agreement of radiological pneumothorax size estimation by Collin’s, Light’s, and that proposed in the ATS guidelines. Thus, a unified, standardized method of radiological assessment of PSP is required.
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
三级甲等医院自发性肺气肿定量方法的比较研究
背景:气胸可以作为一种呼吸急症出现,其病因多种多样。然而,基于放射定量评估和治疗原发性自发性气胸(PSP)的文献很少。本研究旨在比较两种不同的定量气胸大小的方法与美国胸科学会(ATS)胸片指南中推荐的方法,以探讨管理方法的可能变化。患者和方法纳入了在班加罗尔圣约翰医学院医院急诊和肺科就诊3年以上的自发性气胸(SP)成年人的前瞻性队列。统计人口学特征和临床表现。SP的治疗基于ATS指南。采用Light 's指数和Collin 's方法对纳入患者胸片上PSP大小进行定量,并与ATS指南提出的胸片PSP大小进行比较。结果共调查了76名SP患者;平均年龄43.7岁,以男性为主(84.2%)。24例(31.6%)有PSP, 52例(68.4%)有继发性自发性气胸。在PSP中,各种胸片上估计气胸大小的方法之间的一致性较差(Kappa统计量=0.23;ICC为0.263)。如果考虑Light指数或Collin公式,24例PSP病例中有3例(12.5%)需要进行侵入性干预,这些病例按照ATS指南进行保守治疗。结论Collin 's、Light 's和ATS指南中对气胸胸片大小的估计一致性较差。因此,需要一种统一的、标准化的PSP放射学评估方法。
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
Egyptian Journal of Bronchology
Egyptian Journal of Bronchology RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
自引率
7.70%
发文量
56
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessment of atypical pneumonia by chest ultrasonography Safety and efficacy of high flow nasal canula in patients with mild hypercapnia Impact of comorbid pulmonary disease on COVID-19 disease severity and outcome: a retrospective cohort study Imaging changes of oil aspiration over time in children: a case series Diagnostic yield of combined ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and core needle biopsy versus either technique alone in peripheral lung and pleural lesions
×
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