Abstract
Introduction
A debate currently exists regarding the efficacy of pigtail catheters vs chest tubes in the management of thoracic trauma. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of pigtail catheters vs chest tubes in adult trauma patients with thoracic injuries.
Methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO. PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Ebsco, and ProQuest electronic databases were queried for studies comparing the use of pigtail catheters vs chest tubes in adult trauma patients from database inception to August 15th, 2022. The primary outcome was the failure rate of drainage tubes, defined as requiring a second tube placement or VATS, unresolved pneumothorax, hemothorax, or hemopneumothorax requiring additional intervention. Secondary outcomes were initial drainage output, ICU-LOS, and ventilator days.
Results
A total of 7 studies satisfied eligibility criteria and were assessed in the meta-analysis. The pigtail group had higher initial output volumes vs the chest tube group, with a mean difference of 114.7 mL [95% CI (70.6 mL, 158.8 mL)]. Patients in the chest tube group also had a higher risk of requiring VATS vs the pigtail group, with a relative risk of 2.77 [95% CI (1.50, 5.11)].
Conclusions
In trauma patients, pigtail catheters rather than chest tubes are associated with higher initial output volume, reduced risk of VATS, and shorter tube duration. Considering the similar rates of failure, ventilator days, and ICU length-of-stay, pigtail catheters should be considered in the management of traumatic thoracic injuries.
Study Type
Systematic Review and meta-analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
