Utilization of the track embolization technique to improve the safety of percutaneous lung biopsy and/or fiducial marker placement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to describe and present outcomes of the track embolization technique with absorbable hemostat gelatin powder during percutaneous computed tomography (CT)-guided lung biopsy and/or fiducial marker placement versus the standard of care (no track embolization) in an attempt to decrease rates of pneumothorax (PTX), chest tube placement, hemorrhage and/or complications, and average cost per patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved, case-control, retrospective study was performed in which 125 consecutive patients who underwent track embolization were compared with 124 consecutive controls at one institution. For subjects in whom the track embolization technique was utilized, it was performed passively through a coaxial needle as it was removed. All procedures were performed by one of three attending interventional radiologists. For each group, medical records and procedure images were reviewed for PTX occurring postprocedure, PTX requiring chest tube placement, and occurrence of minor or major complication and/or hemorrhage. Comparison was made with published complication rates, and a cost-per-patient analysis was performed. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing Fisher's Exact Test. RESULTS: In track embolization cases versus controls, there were statistically significant reduction in PTX (8.8% vs. 21%; P=.007) and reduction in PTX requiring chest tube placement (4% vs. 8.1%; P=.195). This compares favorably to previously published rates of PTX and chest tube placement of 8%-64% and 1.6%-17%, respectively. None of the pneumothoraces occurring at time of needle placement increased in size with use of the track embolization technique. There were no major complications (including neurological sequela) in the track embolization group. In track embolization cases versus controls, there was a statistically significant reduction in both the rate of major hemorrhage (0% vs. 4%; P=.029) and average cost per patient ($262.40 vs. $352.07; P=.044). CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsy and/or fiducial marker placement were safer utilizing the track embolization technique during trocar removal. In addition, this technique was cost effective in the study population.

Video-assisted thoracoscopy as an important tool for trauma surgeons: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Trauma patients frequently have serious chest injuries. Retained hemothoraces and persistent pneumothoraces are among the most frequent complications of chest injuries which may lead to major, long-term morbidity and mortality if these complications are not recognized and treated appropriately. Video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) is a well-established technique in surgical practice. The usefulness of VATS for treatment of complications after chest trauma has been demonstrated by several authors. However, there is an ongoing debate about the optimal timing of VATS. METHODS: A computerized search was conducted which yielded 450 studies reporting on the use of VATS for thoracic trauma. Eighteen of these studies were deemed relevant for this review. The quality of these studies was assessed using a check-list and the PRISMA guidelines. Outcome parameters were successful evacuation of the retained hemothorax or treatment of other complications as well as reduction of empyema rate, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs. RESULTS: There was only one randomized trial and two prospective studies. Most studies report case series of institutional experiences. VATS was found to be very successful in evacuation of retained hemothoraces and seems to reduce the empyema rate subsequently. Furthermore, the length of hospital stay and costs can be drastically reduced with the early use of VATS. CONCLUSION: Early VATS is an effective treatment for retained hemothoraces or other complications of chest trauma. We propose a clinical pathway, in which VATS is used as an early intervention in order to prevent serious complications such as empyemas or trapped lung.

Omission of routine chest x-ray after chest tube removal is safe in selected trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Definitive practice guidelines regarding the utility of chest x-ray (CXR) following chest tube removal in trauma patients have not been established. The authors hypothesized that the selective use of CXR following chest tube removal is safe and cost effective. METHODS: A retrospective review of chest tube insertions performed at a level I trauma center was conducted. RESULTS: Patients who underwent chest tube removal without subsequent CXR had a lower mean Injury Severity Score and were less likely to have suffered penetrating thoracic injuries. These patients received fewer total CXRs and had shorter durations of chest tube therapy and shorter lengths of stay following tube removal. Subsequent reinterventions were performed more frequently in the CXR group. The annual decrease in hospital charges by foregoing a CXR was $16,280. CONCLUSIONS: The selective omission of CXR following chest tube removal in less severely injured, nonventilated patients does not adversely affect outcomes or increase reintervention rates. Avoiding unnecessary routine CXR after chest tube removal could provide a significant reduction in total hospital charges.

Early evacuation of traumatic retained hemothoraces using thoracoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Failure to adequately evacuate blood from the pleural space after trauma may result in extended hospitalization and complications such as empyema. METHODS: Patients with retained hemothoraces were prospectively randomized to either a second tube thoracostomy (group 1, n = 24) or video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) (group 2, n = 15). Group 1 patients in whom additional tube drainage failed were subsequently randomized to either VATS or thoracotomy. Study end points included duration and costs of hospitalization. RESULTS: During a 4-year period, 39 patients were entered into the study. Patients in group 2 had shorter duration of tube drainage (2.53 +/- 1.36 versus 4.50 +/- 2.83 days, mean +/- standard deviation; p < 0.02), shorter hospital stay after the procedure (3.60 +/- 1.64 versus 7.21 +/- 5.30 days; p < 0.02), and shorter total hospital stay (5.40 +/- 2.16 versus 8.13 +/- 4.62 days; p < 0.02). Hospital costs were also less in this group ($7,689 +/- 3,278 versus $13,273 +/- 8,158; p < 0.02). There was no mortality in either group. No group 2 patient required conversion to thoracotomy. In 10 group 1 patients additional tube placement failed, and this subset was randomized to VATS (n = 5) or thoracotomy (n = 5). No significant difference in clinical outcome was found between these subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In many patients treated only with additional tube drainage (group 1), this therapy fails, necessitating further intervention. Intent to treat with early VATS for retained hemothoraces decreases the duration of tube drainage, the length of hospital stay, and hospital cost. Early intervention with VATS may be a more efficient and economical strategy for managing retained hemothoraces after trauma.