Comparison of outcomes between observation and tube thoracostomy for small traumatic pneumothoraces

• Published in: The American journal of emergency medicine Vol. 66; pp. 36 - 39
• Main Authors: Banks, Kian C., Mooney, Colin M., Mazzolini, Kirea, Browder, Timothy D., Victorino, Gregory P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.04.2023; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Catheters; Chest; Chest Tubes; Computed tomography; Emergency medical care; Emphysema; Empyema; Ethnicity; Funding; Hospitals; Humans; Hypotheses; Length of stay; Mortality; Observation; Outcome; Patients; Pneumothorax; Pneumothorax - diagnostic imaging; Pneumothorax - etiology; Pneumothorax - surgery; Radiography; Retrospective Studies; Thoracic Injuries - complications; Thoracic Injuries - diagnostic imaging; Thoracic Injuries - surgery; Thoracostomy - methods; Tomography; Trauma; Traumatic pneumothorax; Tube Thoracostomy; Ventilators; Wounds, Nonpenetrating - complications; Observation; Traumatic pneumothorax; Tube Thoracostomy; Outcome
• ISSN: 0735-6757; 1532-8171
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.01.017

Traumatic pneumothorax management has evolved to include the use of smaller caliber tube thoracostomy and even observation alone. Data is limited comparing tube thoracostomy to observation for small traumatic pneumothoraces. We aimed to investigate whether observing patients with a small traumatic pneumothorax on initial chest radiograph (CXR) is associated with improved outcomes compared to tube thoracostomy. We retrospectively reviewed trauma patients at our level 1 trauma center from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020. We included those with a pneumothorax size <30 mm as measured from apex to cupola on initial CXR. We excluded patients with injury severity score ≥ 25, operative requirements, hemothorax, bilateral pneumothoraces, and intensive care unit admission. Patients were grouped by management strategy (observation vs tube thoracostomy). Our primary outcome was length of stay with secondary outcomes of pulmonary infection, failed trial of observation, readmission, and mortality. Results are listed as mean ± standard error of the mean. Of patients who met criteria, 39 were in the observation group, and 34 were in the tube thoracostomy group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Average pneumothorax size on CXR was 18 ± 1.0 mm in the observation group and 18 ± 0.84 mm in the tube thoracostomy group (p > 0.99). Average pneumothorax sizes on computed tomography were 25 ± 2.1 and 37 ± 3.9 mm in the observation and tube thoracostomy groups, respectively (p = 0.01). Length of stay in the observation group was significantly shorter than the tube thoracostomy group (3.6 ± 0.33 vs 5.8 ± 0.81 days, p < 0.01). While pneumothorax size on computed tomography was associated with tube thoracostomy, only tube thoracostomy correlated with length of stay on multivariable analysis; pneumothorax size on CXR and computed tomography did not. There were no deaths or readmissions in either cohort. One patient in the observation group required tube thoracostomy after 18 h for worsening subcutaneous emphysema, and one patient in the tube thoracostomy group developed an empyema. Select patients with small traumatic pneumothoraces on initial chest radiograph who were treated with observation experienced an average length of stay over two days shorter than those treated with tube thoracostomy. Outcomes were otherwise similar between the two groups suggesting that an observation-first strategy may be a superior treatment approach for these patients.