Tag Archives: pigtail

Thorax

Chest Tube Size: The Argument That Never Dies

Leave a comment

I’ve written many posts in the past about the arguments surrounding chest tube size: large bore vs. small bore (pigtail). For the longest time, only a few decent papers were looking into this debate, and subject numbers were small. The best the papers could say was that “small-bore chest tubes are not inferior to large-bore tubes.” Not that this is not the same as saying, “small-bore tubes are better than large-bore tubes.”

But finally, after more than ten years, there has been enough written on the topic that a pass at a systematic review and meta-analysis has been attempted.  The University of Miami Ryder Trauma Center group performed a comprehensive review of the topic, spanning literature published through 2022.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 2008 articles were identified, but after careful screening, only 11 articles met predetermined parameters for inclusion
  • There were 3 randomized, controlled studies, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 5 retrospective cohort studies
  • Two pairs of studies had overlapping patients, so only patients in the more recent study of each was included
  • The authors used CASP scoring to judge the quality and likelihood of bias. Nearly all studies included were of high quality.

And here are the interesting findings:

  • There was no significant difference in failure rates between small and large tubes (18% vs. 22% )
  • There were no differences in complication rates (12% vs. 13% )
  • There was a significantly higher amount of initial drainage with the small tubes (750 cc vs 400 cc) (??)
  • Although the overall number of complications was the same, there were significantly more insertion complications in the small-bore group (4.4 vs 2.2). These included intra-hepatic placement, malpositioned tubes, kinked tubes, and dislodgement.
  • Only one study used a validated pain score to measure insertion pain, and there was no difference between the tube sizes
  • Tube days averaged 1.5 days less in the small-bore group, which was significant. However, this did not impact ICU or hospital length of stay.

Bottom line: There are still significant limitations in this study due to the small number of randomized controlled trials that are yet available. I also worry that there is some selection bias in many of the studies that would cause large-bore tubes to be inserted preferentially into patients with more severe chest trauma, larger hemothorax, or more emergent need for the tube. However, if there were major, major differences, they would probably be starting to rear their heads by now.

The authors of this paper concluded that “small bore tube thoracostomy may be as effective as large bore thoracostomy for the management of patients with hemothorax.” They correctly suggest that guided studies examining which patients are more suited for a specific sized tube. I totally agree.

For now, I still don’t think there is a definitive answer. I recommend that the bedside trauma professional use their judgment regarding patient condition, the magnitude of the chest trauma, and the urgency of the procedure to select a size. They must also consider their expertise with the tube selected to maximize effectiveness and minimize complications.

I’m sure there will be even more to write on this topic. It doesn’t seem to want to die.

Reference:  Small versus large-bore thoracostomy for traumatic hemothorax: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 97(4):p 631-638, October 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004412

Abstracts

EAST 2019 #3: Chest Tube vs Pigtail

Leave a comment

I love stuff about chest tubes. There are so many opinions and so little data to back them up. And now here’s another EAST 2019 Annual Assembly paper from the University of Arizona at Tucson on chest tubes! The traditional dogma, and something that I’ve promoted for some time, is that the only size chest tube that should be used for hemothorax is big (36 Fr) or bigger (40 Fr). There have been a few abstracts and published papers over the past 7 years that are trying to change this assumption. Will they be successful?

The first work on this was a paper published in 2012 by this same group in Tucson. It was a prospective study that included 36 patients with pigtails and 191 with 32 Fr – 40 Fr chest tubes over 30 months. Average initial drain output was the same, and there were no differences in tube in time, complications, or failure rate.

A related abstract was then presented by this group at the 2013 EAST Annual Assembly, but it doesn’t look like this one got published. It was a small, prospective study that enrolled 40 of 72 eligible patients over 20 months and compared pigtail catheters vs 28 Fr chest tubes. They found that chest wall and tube site pain was less with a pigtail, and that failure and complication rates, tube in time, and hospital stay were the same.

And then in 2017 more related work was presented at EAST from the group, and was later published in the World Journal of Surgery. This study was the culmination of 7 years of experience, and included nearly 500 subjects. Once again, initial drainage output was the same, as were complications and failure rate. The authors concluded that a multi-center trial was need to provide additional support.

And that brings us up to EAST 2019. Now the authors are presenting a single-center study comparing 14 Fr pigtail vs 28-36 Fr chest tubes for hemothorax and pneumthorax. What’s different about this one? For the first time, the subjects were randomized between pigtail and chest tube in an effort to eliminate selection bias.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 43 patients were enrolled, but the number excluded was not given
  • Although baseline characteristics of the two groups were identical, several differences approached clinical significance: percent blunt trauma, flail chest, insertion day, and initial chest tube output
  • The authors concluded that there were no differences in initial chest tube output, failure rate, tube days, and lengths of stay. However, perceived pain was less.
  • They again noted that a multi-center trial should be performed to confirm these results

Here are some questions for the authors and presenter to consider in advance to help them prepare for audience questions:

  • What’s new and different with this study? The University of Arizona – Tucson has been studying pigtails since 2009. Tell us about the progression of this work and how the current study fits in.
  • How many patients were excluded? This is very important, especially if this number is high. What were the exclusion criteria exactly?
  • What did your power analysis show? The overall enrollment numbers are low, which may throw your statistics into doubt. This is especially true since your primary outcome showed that pigtail and chest tube outputs were the same but with a p=0.06! More patients may have helped show the desired difference.
  • Were the pigtail and chest tube groups really “similar?” There were more penetrating injuries in the chest tube group. Could this have an impact on clotted vs non-clotted blood in the chest and the ability of a pigtail to drain it? And the median pigtail insertion date was 1.5 days later than for chest tubes, which is clinically significant. Could this allow time for defibrination of the hemothorax, resulting in better drainage?
  • And what’s next? Will I see you again at EAST 2020 or 2021 with a larger prospective study? Or a multi-center one?

I’m looking forward to hearing this one in person!

References:

  • A single center prospective randomized study comparing the effectiveness of 14 French percutaneous catheters (pigtail) versus 28-36 French chest tube in the management of traumatic hemothorax/hemopneumothorax. EAST 2019 Paper #13.
  • EAST abstract presentation 2013.
  • EAST abstract presentation 2017.
What the heck?

What The Heck? Pigtail Catheter Chest Tube – The Answer

Leave a comment

I previously described a trauma patient who had a pigtail type chest tube inserted with some odd CT findings after insertion:

So what is wrong in this picture? Well, the catheter has been inserted into the spleen! This can occur if it is inserted too low, or if there are adhesions between lung and chest wall or diaphragm.

How can it be avoided? Make sure that the insertion point is no lower than the 5th intercostal space. This is the level of the nipple in a male. And depending on what type of kit you use, be careful! Some are based on Seldinger technique, which would seem to be a bit safer. Others use a small trochar, which can be inserted a little too deeply at times. Note that this complication can occur with any kit, and can also occur when using a standard tube and open insertion technique.

Does a pigtail tube even work for hemothorax? There’s some debate about this. Traumatic hemothorax is not defibrinated like a medical one. Thus, there are frequently clots present which may not fully evacuate through a standard chest tube, let alone a tiny one. Thus, I don’t recommend a pigtail for acute traumatic hemothorax.

How should I manage this issue? Obviously, this tube needs to come out. And assuming that the initial indication for the tube is still present, a better one needs to be inserted. Dont’ pull it out yet! First, look at the vital signs. If there is significant bleeding and/or vitals are not normal, an immediate trip to the operating room is in order. In this case, the patient will likely lose their spleen.

If vital signs are stable, book both an interventional radiology suite and an OR. Or better yet, use a hybrid room. Have the radiologist obtain a baseline angiogram, and position a catheter in the main splenic artery. Incrementally remove the pigtail, hand injecting a small amount of contrast each time. If extravasation is noted at any time, the radiologist can then attempt to embolize. If selective embolization isn’t successful, then the main splenic artery should be embolized. If embolization doesn’t work, or vital signs deteriorate at any time, the surgeon should immediately proceed to laparotomy. Attempts at splenic salvage will probably not be successful.

Finally, insert a new, conventional chest tube using finger guidance. Don’t make the same mistake twice! And by the way, this works for pigtails in the liver, too. They are less likely to bleed significantly when withdrawn, and obviously the radiologist can only used selective embolization if they do.

What the heck?

What The Heck? Pigtail Catheter Chest Tube

Leave a comment

Here’s a case to make you think!

A patient arrives after being t-boned in his driver side door. He complains of left sided chest and abdominal pain. Chest x-ray shows a modest left hemopneumothorax. The decision is made to insert a pigtail type chest tube, and this is carried out in your trauma bay. It is uneventful, and a small amount of blood but no air is returned. The pelvis x-ray is unremarkable

The patient is then taken to CT, where an abdomen/pelvis scan with contrast is performed. This interesting slice is noted. What the heck?!

Here are my questions:

  • What is wrong in this picture?
  • How could it have been avoided?
  • Does a pigtail chest tube work for hemothorax?
  • How should this issue be managed, and where?

I’ll address these questions in my next post, and more!

Image source: internet

Thorax, Tips, Video

How To: Insert A Small Percutaneous Chest Tube

Leave a comment

This short (10 minute) video demonstrated the technique for inserting small chest tubes, also known as “pigtail catheters.” It features Jessie Nelson MD from the Regions Hospital Department of Emergency Medicine. It was first shown at the third annual Trauma Education: The Next Education conference in September 2015, for which she was a course director.

Please feel free to leave any comments or ask any questions that you may have.

YouTube player

Related posts:
Pigtail catheters vs regular chest tubes
Tips for regular chest tubes 

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/)