IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0178802.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic review and meta-analysis of initial management of pneumothorax in adults: Intercostal tube drainage versus other invasive methods

Author

Listed:
  • Min Joung Kim
  • Incheol Park
  • Joon Min Park
  • Kyung Hwan Kim
  • Junseok Park
  • Dong Wun Shin

Abstract

Objectives: The ideal invasive management as initial approach for pneumothorax (PTX) is still under debate. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the evidence for the effectiveness of intercostal tube drainage and other various invasive methods as the initial approach to all subtypes of PTX in adults. Methods: Three databases were searched from inception to May 29, 2016: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Randomised controlled trials that evaluated intercostal tube drainage as the control and various invasive methods as the intervention for the initial approach to PTX in adults were included. The primary outcome was the early success rate of each method, and the risk ratios (RRs) were used for an effect size measure. The secondary outcomes were recurrence rate, hospitalization rate, hospital stay, and complications. Results: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. Interventions were aspiration in six studies and catheterization connected to a one-way valve in one study. Meta-analyses were conducted for early success rate, recurrence rate, hospitalization rate, and hospital stay. Aspiration was inferior to intercostal tube drainage in terms of early success rate (RR = 0.82, confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.95, I2 = 0%). While aspiration and intercostal tube drainage showed no significant difference in the recurrence rate (RR = 0.84, CI = 0.57 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), aspiration had shorter hospital stay than intercostal tube drainage (mean difference = -1.73, CI = -2.33 to -1.13, I2 = 0%). Aspiration had lower hospitalization rate than intercostal tube drainage, but marked heterogeneity was present (RR = 0.38, CI = 0.19 to 0.76, I2 = 85%). Conclusion: Aspiration was inferior to intercostal tube drainage in terms of early resolution, but it had shorter hospital stay. The recurrence rate of aspiration and intercostal tube drainage did not differ significantly. The efficacy of catheterization connected to a one-way valve was inconclusive because of the small number of relevant studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Min Joung Kim & Incheol Park & Joon Min Park & Kyung Hwan Kim & Junseok Park & Dong Wun Shin, 2017. "Systematic review and meta-analysis of initial management of pneumothorax in adults: Intercostal tube drainage versus other invasive methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0178802
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178802
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178802&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0178802?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:pone00:0178802. 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.