Galleries

General
Gallery Leave a comment

More On Treating Pneumothorax With Oxygen

One of my readers has pointed out that, yes, the evidence for using O2 to treat pneumothorax is poor, but practice and standard of care are not always driven by evidence. He also pointed out that it’s not really fair to condemn the use of this modality if there isn’t specific evidence showing that it’s bad. In other words, doing something that seems benign is okay if we can’t show that it’s harmful or at least prove that it’s actually benign. I don’t agree.

My point is that no intervention is truly benign. There are always potential complications for the things we do as physicians, sometimes physical, sometimes psychological. Putting a patient on O2 seems safe. But if used as a treatment for pneumothorax, it means hospitalization (which costs a lot of money), an IV (which could get infected), exposure to a lot of sick people (read MRSA and other fun bugs), lying in bed a lot more than at home (DVT), and on and on.

If the pneumothorax does not interfere with function and the patient has decent pulmonary health, why not send them home with reassurance and get a followup chest xray at some point to confirm resolution? If it does cause physiologic problems, or they have pulmonary disease and are likely to develop complications such as pneumonia, then admit for the least invasive treatment to quickly get it out (pigtail type catheter).

Since this topic just won’t seem to die, I’m going to try to kill the last papers I’m aware of on this topic today and tomorrow. Today’s was published in a pediatric surgical journal (!), and it’s another rabbit study. This one adds a wrinkle to the one I discussed yesterday. Not only did they inject air to create a pneumothorax (20cc this time), they punctured the pleura with a needle to create an air leak to simulate a real clinical problem.

They saw the same trend as posted yesterday, although the times were longer. Once again, resolution was measured with chest xray (performed every 12 hours this time). Unfortunately, 7 of the 27 rabbits used in each group died, leaving only 6 or 7 in each of 3 groups for analysis (room air, 40%, 60% O2). Even with wide standard deviations, the authors claimed significant differences in recovery.

Same problems as yesterday, particularly with how resolution of pneumothorax is determined. And don’t use rabbits! A bigger issue is that this is not really a clinically relevant model. First, creating an air leak would defeat the overall purpose of giving high O2 concentrations. If 60% O2 leaked into the pleural space, there would be less nitrogen to wash out so one would think that resolution would take longer. And no one would consider treating a patient with an air leak without some type of drainage device for fear of a tension pneumothorax.

Bottom line: Still not enough evidence to support this seemingly benign treatment. Tomorrow I’ll look at the (hopefully) last paper on the topic since the beginning of time, published in 1971.

Related posts:

Reference: Supplemental oxygen improves resolution of injury-induced pneumothorax. J Pediatric Surg 35(6):998-1001, 2000.

Thanks to Jonathan St. George for his comments on yesterday’s post!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
General
Gallery Leave a comment

Treating Pneumothorax With Oxygen (Again)

The topic of treating pneumothorax with high inspired oxygen concentrations keeps coming up! I’ve written about this a few times in the past, and the literature I found supporting the practice was terrible. Some readers brought three more studies to my attention that support it, so I’m going to take the next three days to see if there is any hope for this practice.

Today’s paper used a rabbit model where each animal was given a complete pneumothorax by the injection of 15cc (!!) of air into one hemithorax. The authors then let the pneumothorax resolve using room air or 30%, 40%, or 50% FIO2. Each group consisted of 10 rabbits, and repeat chest xrays were obtained every 6-8 hours to follow resolution.

The statistical analysis was interesting and unusual. Because the authors were studying the time to resolved pneumothorax with higher inspired O2, they were looking for a test that would analyze an “ordered alternative.” The Jonckheere-Terpstra test was used, which I have never heard of, but I’ll assume it’s the legitimate one to use.

The figure at the top of this post shows the results. Looks promising right? There was a big improvement from room air to 30%, but lesser improvement using higher oxygen concentrations. The error bars (standard error of the mean) are remarkably tight, but this makes sense since xrays were only being taken every 6-8 hours.

The two big problems with this study are that: 1. they’re rabbits and it only takes 15cc of air to drop the entire lung, and 2. standard xray is being used to measure resolution. Trying to pick apart the exact time to resolution of a 15cc pneumothorax is very difficult, and to try to do it with a test that we know is not great at detecting small amounts of air even in big humans just doesn’t work. 

Bottom line: Fancy statistics and nice looking results don’t make up for an animal model that doesn’t necessarily correlate with humans and deriving results using an inaccurate diagnostic test. Tomorrow, I’ll look at a paper in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery to see if it fares any better.

Related posts:

Reference: Resolution of experimental pneumothorax in rabbits by graded oxygen therapy. J Trauma 45(2):333-334, 1998.

Thanks to Stephanie Taft MD at Regions Hospital for finding these fine studies for me.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
General
Gallery Leave a comment

A Cool Way To Remove Embedded Foreign Bodies

Yesterday I wrote about the need to remove certain bullets or lead shot if there is any danger of lead poisoning. Unfortunately, many of us have had the experience of digging into bloody tissue for long periods of time trying to locate the object, even with fluoroscopy. Well, there’s a better way of doing this.

A group in China described a technique using a fancy form of needle localization. They employed a set of instruments normally used for lumbar diskectomy (see photo). This set includes a long 18 Ga needle with a removable hub, several dilators and an outer cannula with a 5.8mm diameter. A pair of 3.8mm grasping forceps is also used.

The foreign body is located using a C-arm fluoroscopy unit and the best approach is planned. The 18 Ga needle is then inserted using fluoro until it touches the object. The hub is removed and dilators are inserted over the needle, one after the other. The outer cannula is then placed over them, and the needle and dilators are then removed. The cannula is manipulated until the foreign body (or a part of it) is located within the cannula. It is then grasped and removed, along with the cannula if needed. If the object is too large to enter the cannula, the cannula is pulled back slightly and the grasper introduced past the end of it to grip and remove the foreign body.

The writers shared the details of 76 patients who had a total of 251 foreign bodies removed over a 6 year period. The depth varied from 2.5 to 8.5cm. Procedure time ranged from 8 to 15 minutes, and fluoro exposure varied from 1 to 4 minutes. Success rate was 100% (all foreign bodies were removed) and there were no complications.

Bottom line: This is a very slick technique that promises to dramatically increase the success rate and decrease complications from removing foreign bodies. The amount of time spent is much less than the brute force technique, as is the amount of soft tissue trauma. Large objects that cannot be grasped with these forceps cannot be removed with this method. Although I am a little concerned that the authors’ results were so perfect, it’s certainly worth a try!

Related post:

Reference: Percutaneous extraction of deeply-embedded radiopaque foreign bodies using a less-invasive technique under image guidance. J Trauma 72(1):302-305, 2012.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Imaging

CT Scan Images Simplified

Gallery Leave a comment

Ever wonder what is going on when you drag your mouse across a CT image, or when you change the “window” settings of an image from lung to abdomen? It all has to do with the way CT generated xray information is displayed, and how your eyes and brain perceive it.

Let’s get down to basics. The first thing needed is to understand the concept of radiodensity. The CT scanner uses a set of software algorithms to determine the amount of x-radiation absorbed by every element in a plane of tissue. Each of these elements is represented by a pixel on the video display, and the density (amount of x-radiation absorbed) is measured in Hounsfield units. This scale was developed by Sir Godfrey Hounsfield, who set the radiodensity of water at 0, and air at -1000. The scale extends in the positive direction to about +4000, which represents very dense metals. See the table for the density of common substances on CT.

When you view a CT scan on a video display, two important numbers are displayed on screen. The first is the window width (W), which describes the range of Hounsfield units displayed. The maximum window width possible is usually about 2000, but our eyes are not capable of seeing this many shades. Actually, we can really only distinguish about 16 shades of gray. So the window width is divided by 16, and each group of Hounsfield values is converted to one of 16 shades of gray. The lowest Hounsfield numbers in the window range are shown as black, and the highest are white.

The second important number is the window level (L). This is the Hounsfield number in the center of the window width. So let’s look at some typical examples of W/L settings.

The abdomen contains mostly soft tissue, which is just a little denser than water. So most of the abdominal contents have Hounsfield values from 0 to 100 or so. A typical abdominal scan W/L setting is 350/50. This means that a total range of 350 different densities are displayed, centered on a density of 50 Hounsfield units ( range is -125 to 225 HU). Each difference of 22 HU will show up as a different shade of gray. So this narrow window allows us to distinguish relatively subtle differences in density.

The chest cavities are primarily air-filled, and the lungs are very low density. So it makes sense that a typical lung W/L setting is 1500/-500. The window ranges from -1250 to +250 HU, and a wider range of 94 HU represents one shade of gray. This is typical of body regions with a wider range of densities.

Finally, bone windows are usually 2000/250. This window is centered above the usual tissue densities, and is very wide so that it shows a wide range of densities in only 16 shades of gray. Thus, the contrast appears very low.

On most displays, the window width increases as you drag the mouse to the right. This increases the range of densities in a shade of gray, thus decreasing the overall amount of contrast in the image. Dragging the mouse down decreases the window level, moving it toward the air end of the spectrum. This allows you to center your window on the type of tissue you are interested in viewing and adjust your ability to distinguish objects with a lot or only a little contrast (see table above).

I apologize to my radiology colleagues in advance for this simplistic explanation. Trauma professionals have minimal exposure (pun intended) to the physics and details of radiographic imaging. We are much more interested in effectively using this technology to save our patients’ lives.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
General
Gallery Leave a comment

Does Initial Hematocrit Predict Shock?

Everything you know is WRONG!

The classic textbook teaching is that trauma patients bleed whole blood. And that if you measure the hematocrit (or hemoglobin) on arrival, it will approximate their baseline value because not enough time has passed for equilibration and hemodilution. As I’ve said before, you’ve got to be willing to question dogma!

The trauma group at Ryder in Miami took a good look at this assumption. They drew initial labs on all patients requiring emergency surgery within 4 hours of presentation to the trauma center. They also estimated blood loss in the resuscitation room and OR and compared it to the initial hematocrit. They also compared the hematocrit to the amount of crystalloid and blood transfused in those areas.

Patients with lower initial hematocrits had significantly higher blood loss and fluid and blood replacement during the initial treatment period. Some of this effect may be due to the fact that blood loss was underestimated, or that prehospital IV fluids diluted the patient’s blood counts. However, this study appears sound and should prompt us to question the “facts” we hear every day.

Bottom line: Starling was right! Fluid shifts occur rapidly, and initial hematocrit or hemoglobin may very well reflect the volume status of patients who are bleeding rapidly. If the blood counts you obtain in the resuscitation room come back low, believe it! You must presume your patient is bleeding to death until proven otherwise.

Reference: Initial hematocrit in trauma: A paradigm shift? J Trauma 72(1):54-60, 2012.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email