IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0127857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Pleural Abrasion on the Treatment of Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou-Gui Ling
  • Yan-bin Wu
  • Mo-yu Ming
  • Shuang-qi Cai
  • Yi-Qiang Chen

Abstract

Background: Pleural abrasion has been widely used to control the recurrence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP). However, controversy still exists regarding the advantages and disadvantages of pleural abrasion compared with other interventions in preventing the recurrence of PSP. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to December 15, 2014 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of pleural abrasion with those of other interventions in the treatment of PSP. The study outcomes included the PSP recurrence rate and the occurrence rate of adverse effects. Results: Mechanical pleural abrasion and apical pleurectomy after thoracoscopic stapled bullectomy exhibited similarly persistent postoperative air leak occurrence rates (p = 0.978) and 1-year PSP recurrence rates (p = 0.821), whereas pleural abrasion led to reduced residual chest pain and discomfort (p = 0.001) and a smaller rate of hemothorax (p = 0.036) than did apical pleurectomy. However, the addition of minocycline pleurodesis to pleural abrasion did not reduce the pneumothorax recurrence rate compared with apical pleurectomy (3.8% for both procedures) but was associated with fewer complications. There was no statistical difference in the pneumothorax recurrence rate between mechanical pleural abrasion and chemical pleurodesis with minocycline on either an intention-to-treat basis (4 of 42 versus 0 of 42, p = 0.12; Fisher exact test) or after exclusions (2 of 40 versus 0 of 42, p = 0.24; Fisher exact test). Pleural abrasion plus minocycline pleurodesis also did not reduce the pneumothorax recurrence rate compared with pleural abrasion alone (p = 0.055). Moreover, pleural abrasion plus minocycline pleurodesis was associated with more intense acute chest pain. The postoperative overall recurrence rate in patients who underwent staple line coverage with absorbable cellulose mesh and fibrin glue was similar to that with mechanical abrasion after thoracoscopic bullectomy (13.8% vs. 14.2%, respectively; p = 0.555), but staple line coverage resulted in less postoperative residual pain than mechanical abrasion (0.4% vs.3.2%; p

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou-Gui Ling & Yan-bin Wu & Mo-yu Ming & Shuang-qi Cai & Yi-Qiang Chen, 2015. "The Effect of Pleural Abrasion on the Treatment of Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127857
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127857
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127857&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0127857?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127857. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.