Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Complications in tube thoracostomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tube thoracostomy (TT) complications and their reported rates are highly variable (1-40%) and inconsistently classified. Consistent TT complication classification must be applied to compare reported literature to standardize TT placement. We aim to determine the overall TT-related complication rates in patients receiving TT for traumatic indications using uniform definitions.

METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis was performed assessing TT-related complications. Comprehensive search of several databases (1975-2015) was conducted. We included studies that reported on bedside TT insertion (≥22 Fr) in trauma patients. Data were abstracted from eligible articles by independent reviewers with discrepancies reconciled by a third. Analyses were based on complication category subtypes: insertional, positional, removal, infection/immunologic/education, and malfunction.

RESULTS: Database search resulted in 478 studies; after applying criteria 29 studies were analyzed representing 4,981 TTs. Injury mechanisms included blunt 60% (49-71), stab 27% (17-34), and gunshot 13% (7.8-10). Overall, median complication rate was 19% (95% confidence interval, 14-24.3). Complication subtypes included insertional (15.3%), positional (53.1%), removal (16.2%), infection/immunologic (14.8%), and malfunction (0.6%). Complication rates did not change significantly over time for insertional, immunologic, or removal p = 0.8. Over time, there was a decrease in infectious TT-related complications as well as an increase in positional TT complications.

CONCLUSION: Generation of evidence-based approaches to improve TT insertion outcomes is difficult because a variety of complication classifications has been used. This meta-analysis of complications after TT insertion in trauma patients suggests that complications have not changed over time remaining stable at 19% over the past three decades.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app