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

Timing of ultra-portable ultrasound (UPUS) Examinations in detecting clinically concerning recurrent pneumothorax

BACKGROUND

Recurrent pneumothorax (rPTX) is a common complication following thoracostomy tube (TT) removal in chest trauma patients. While chest X-ray (CXR) is most commonly used to detect a rPTX, bedside ultraportable ultrasound (UPUS) is a feasible, low cost, and radiation free alternative. No consensus exists with regards to the optimal timing of diagnostic imaging to assess for rPTX post-TT removal. Accordingly, we sought to identify an ideal UPUS timing to detect a rPTX METHODS: We conducted a single center prospective study of adult (≥18years) patients admitted with a chest trauma. UPUS examinations were performed using the Butterfly iQ+™ ultrasound. Three intercostal spaces (ICS) were evaluated (2nd through 4th). Post-TT UPUS examinations were performed at different timepoints following tube removal (1-6 h). A rPTX on UPUS was defined as the absence of lung-sliding in one or more intercostal spaces, and was considered a clinically concerning rPTX if lung-sliding was absent in ≥2 ICS. UPUS findings were compared to CXR.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients (97 hemi-thoraces) were included in the analysis. A total of 58 patients had a post-TT removal rPTX of which 11 were either clinically concerning or expanding. Comparing UPUS findings to CXR, the 3-hour post-TT removal ultrasound examinations were associated with the highest sensitivity. By hour 4, no rPTX showed expansion in size. Three patients required an intervention for a clinically concerning rPTX, all of whom were detected on UPUS 3-hour post-TT removal.

CONCLUSION

Bedside UPUS performed at 3-hour post-TT removal has the highest sensitivity in detecting clinically concerning rPTX. Size of rPTX appears to stabilize by hour 4. In the absence of clinical symptoms, repeat imaging or observation of non-significant rPTX beyond 4 h may not provide added clinical benefit.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, Diagnostic Tests or Criteria.

[Chest Tube in Thoracic Trauma - Recommendations of the Interdisciplinary Thoracic Trauma Task Group of the German Society for Thoracic Surgery (DGT) and the German Trauma Society (DGU)]

For unstable patients with chest trauma, the chest tube is the method of choice for the treatment of a relevant pneumothorax or haemothorax. In the case of a tension pneumothorax, needle decompression with a cannula of at least 5 cm length should be performed, directly followed by the insertion of a chest tube. The evaluation of the patient should be performed primarily with a clinical examination, a chest X-ray and sonography, but the gold standard of diagnostic testing is computed tomography (CT).A small-bore chest tube (e.g. 14 French) should be used in stable patients, while unstable patients should receive a large-bore drain (24 French or larger). Insertion of chest drains has a high complication rate of between 5% and 25%, and incorrect positioning of the tube is the most common complication. However, incorrect positioning can usually only be reliably detected or ruled out with a CT scan, and chest X-rays proofed to be insufficient to answer this question. Therapy should be carried out with mild suction of approximately 20 cmH₂O, and clamping the chest tube before removal showed no beneficial effect. The removal of drains can be safely performed, either at the end of inspiration or at the end of expiration. In order to reduce the high complication rate, in the future the focus should be more on the education and training of medical staff members.

Impact of routine chest radiographs after removal of pigtail chest tubes placed by pediatric interventional radiology

BACKGROUND

Chest radiographs are commonly obtained after chest tube removal to assess for complications. The benefit of this practice in children is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical impact of a routine chest radiograph following removal of chest tubes placed by pediatric interventional radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective study evaluated 200 chest tube removals in 176 patients (median age: 4 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 1.2-12; median weight: 17.2 kg, IQR: 10.67-37.6), who had a chest tube placed and removed by pediatric interventional radiology over a 16-year period. A chest radiograph obtained on the day of removal was compared to the preceding study. For patients with imaging changes, medical records were reviewed to determine whether clinical actions occurred as a result. All records were reviewed for 7 days after tube removal or hospital discharge, whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

The most common indication for chest tube insertion was simple effusion (53%, 106/200) and the most common tube size was 10.2 French (38.7%, 81/209). The median tube dwell time was 8 days (IQR: 5-17). There was a median of 14 h (IQR: 7-33.5) between imaging before and after tube removal. Imaging changes occurred in 10% (n = 20/200) of chest tube removals. Three of 200 (1.5%) of these were symptomatic after removal and only 0.5% (1/200) required chest tube reinsertion. For the remaining removals resulting in chest radiograph changes, patients were asymptomatic and required no change in clinical management.

CONCLUSION

For chest tubes placed by pediatric interventional radiology, these findings do not support the practice of a routine chest radiograph after removal in asymptomatic children.

Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources is a common problem, constituting 10-34% of health services spending in the western world. Even though diagnostic imaging is vital for identifying correct diagnoses and administrating the right treatment, low-value imaging-in which the diagnostic test confers little to no clinical benefit-is common and contributes to inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources. There is a lack of knowledge on the types and extent of low-value imaging. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to identify, characterize, and quantify the extent of low-value diagnostic imaging examinations for adults and children.

METHODS

A scoping review of the published literature was performed. Medline-Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from 2010 to September 2020. The search strategy was built from medical subject headings (Mesh) for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology OR Health service misuse/Medical overuse OR Procedures and Techniques Utilization/Facilities and Services Utilization. Articles in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian were included.

RESULTS

A total of 39,986 records were identified and, of these, 370 studies were included in the final synthesis. Eighty-four low-value imaging examinations were identified. Imaging of atraumatic pain, routine imaging in minor head injury, trauma, thrombosis, urolithiasis, after thoracic interventions, fracture follow-up and cancer staging/follow-up were the most frequently identified low-value imaging examinations. The proportion of low-value imaging varied between 2 and 100% inappropriate or unnecessary examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive list of identified low-value radiological examinations for both adults and children are presented. Future research should focus on reasons for low-value imaging utilization and interventions to reduce the use of low-value imaging internationally.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42020208072.

Routine chest X-rays after pigtail chest tube removal rarely change management in children

BACKGROUND

The need for chest X-rays (CXR) following large-bore chest tube removal has been questioned; however, the utility of CXRs following removal of small-bore pigtail chest tubes is unknown. We hypothesized that CXRs obtained following removal of pigtail chest tubes would not change management.

METHODS

Patients < 18 years old with pigtail chest tubes placed 2014-2019 at a tertiary children's hospital were reviewed. Exclusion criteria were age < 1 month, death or transfer with a chest tube in place, or pigtail chest tube replacement by large-bore chest tube. The primary outcome was chest tube reinsertion.

RESULTS

111 patients underwent 123 pigtail chest tube insertions; 12 patients had bilateral chest tubes. The median age was 5.8 years old. Indications were pneumothorax (n = 53), pleural effusion (n = 54), chylothorax (n = 6), empyema (n = 5), and hemothorax (n = 3). Post-pull CXRs were obtained in 121/123 cases (98.4%). The two children without post-pull CXRs did not require chest tube reinsertion. Two patients required chest tube reinsertion (1.6%), both for re-accumulation of their chylothorax.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-pull chest X-rays are done nearly universally following pigtail chest tube removal but rarely change management. Providers should obtain post-pull imaging based on symptoms and underlying diagnosis, with higher suspicion for recurrence in children with chylothorax.

Scoping review of traumatic hemothorax: Evidence and knowledge gaps, from diagnosis to chest tube removal

BACKGROUND

Traumatic hemothorax is a common injury that invites diagnostic and management strategy debates. Evidence-based management has been associated with improved care efficiency. However, the literature abounds with long-debated, re-emerging, and new questions. We aimed to consolidate up-to-date evidence on traumatic hemothoraces, focusing on clinical conundra debated in literature.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of 21 clinical conundra in traumatic hemothorax diagnosis and management according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Experimental and observational studies evaluating patients (aged ≥18 years) with traumatic hemothoraces were identified through database searches (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library; database inception to Sep, 26 2020) and bibliography reviews of selected articles. Three reviewers screened and selected articles using standardized forms.

RESULTS

We screened 1,440 articles for eligibility, of which 71 met criteria for synthesis. The review comprises 6 sections: (1) Presumptive antibiotics before tube thoracostomy; (2) Initial diagnostic and intervention decisions; (3) Chest tubes; (4) Retained hemothoraces; (5) Delayed hemothoraces; and (6) Chest tube removal). The 21 conundra across these sections follow the format of a question, our recommendation based on interpretation of available evidence, and succinct rationale. Rationale sections detail knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research.

CONCLUSION

Even practices engrained into surgical dogma, such as obtaining chest x-rays after inserting or removing chest tubes and mandating operation for patients who develop chest tube output above a certain threshold, deserve re-evaluation. Some knowledge gaps require rigorous future investigation; sound clinical judgment can likely supplement others.

Thoracostomy Tube Removal in Pediatric Trauma: Film or No Film?

BACKGROUND

Use of routine chest x-rays (CXR) following thoracostomy tube (TT) removal is highly variable and its utility is debated. We hypothesize that routine post-pull chest x-ray (PP-CXR) findings following TT removal in pediatric trauma would not guide the decision for TT reinsertion.

METHODS

Patients ≤ 18 y who were not mechanically ventilated and undergoing final TT removal for a traumatic hemothorax (HTX) and/or pneumothorax (PTX) at a level I pediatric trauma center from 2010 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes of interest were rate of PP-CXR and TT reinsertion rate following PP-CXR. Clinical predictors for worsened findings on PP-CXR were also assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were included. A CXR after TT removal was performed in 57 patients (97%), with 28% demonstrating worsened CXR findings compared to the prior film. Except for higher ISS (p = 0.033), there were no demographic or clinical predictors for worsened CXR findings. However, they were more likely to have additional films following the TT removal (p = 0.008) than those with stable or improved PP-CXR findings. One (1.8%) asymptomatic child with worsened PP-CXR findings had TT reinsertion based purely on their worsened PP-CXR findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of PP-CXR did not guide TT reinsertion after pediatric thoracic trauma. Treatment algorithms may aid to reduce variability and potentially unnecessary routine films.

Is a chest radiograph indicated after chest tube removal in trauma patients? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the necessity of routine chest radiographs after chest tube removal in ventilated and nonventilated trauma patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL on May 15, 2020. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria. Primary outcome measures were abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph (e.g., recurrence of a pneumothorax, hemothorax, pleural effusion) and reintervention after chest tube removal. Secondary outcome measures were emergence of new clinical symptoms or vital signs after chest tube removal.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included, consisting of seven studies on nonventilated patients and seven studies on combined cohorts of ventilated and nonventilated patients, all together containing 1,855 patients. Nonventilated patients had abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph in 10% (range across studies, 0-38%) of all chest tubes and 24% (range, 0-78%) of those underwent reintervention. In the studies that reported on clinical symptoms after chest tube removal, all patients who underwent reintervention also had symptoms of recurrent pathology. Combined cohorts of ventilated and nonventilated patients had abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph in 20% (range, 6-49%) of all chest tubes and 45% (range, 8-63%) of those underwent reintervention.

CONCLUSION

In nonventilated patients, one in ten developed recurrent pathology after chest tube removal and almost a quarter of them underwent reintervention. In two studies that reported on clinical symptoms, all reinterventions were performed in patients with symptoms of recurrent pathology. In these two studies, omission of routine postremoval chest radiograph seemed safe. However, current literature remains insufficient to draw definitive conclusions on this matter, and future studies are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review study, level IV.

Are routine chest X-rays following chest tube removal necessary in asymptomatic pediatric patients?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if routine chest X-rays (CXRs) performed after chest tube (CT) removal in pediatric patients provide additional benefit for clinical management compared to observation of symptoms alone.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was conducted of inpatients, 18 years or younger, who had a CT managed by the pediatric surgery team between July 2017 and May 2019. The study compared two groups: (1) patients who received a post-pull CXR and (2) those who did not. The primary outcome of the study was the need for intervention after CT removal.

RESULTS

102 patients had 116 CTs and met inclusion criteria; 79 post-pull CXRs were performed; the remaining 37 CT pulls did not have a follow-up CXR. No patients required CT replacement or surgery in the absence of symptoms. Three patients exhibited clinical symptoms that would have prompted intervention regardless of post-pull CXR results. One patient had an intervention guided by post-pull CXR results alone. Meanwhile, another patient had delayed onset of symptoms and intervention. No patients required an intervention in the group that did not have a post-pull CXR.

CONCLUSION

Chest X-ray after CT removal had a very low yield for changing clinical management of asymptomatic patients. Clinical symptoms predict the need for an intervention.

Is a chest radiograph after thoracostomy tube removal necessary? A cost-effective analysis

BACKGROUND

Following placement of tube thoracostomy (TT) for evacuation of traumatic hemopneumothorax (HPTX), controversy persists over the need for routine post-TT removal chest radiograph (CXR). Current research demonstrates routine CXR may offer no advantage over clinical observation alone while simultaneously increasing hospital resource utilization. As such, we hypothesized that in resolved traumatic HPTXs routine post-TT removal CXR to assess recurrent PTX compared to clinical observation is not cost-effective.

METHODS

We performed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine CXR compared to clinical observation following TT removal. Our base case was a patient that sustained thoracic trauma with radiographic and clinical resolution of HPTX following TT evacuation. Cost, utility and probability estimates were generated from published literature, with costs represented in 2019 US dollars and utilities in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Decision-analytic model identified that clinical observation after TT removal was the dominant strategy with increased benefit at less cost, when compared to routine CXR, with a net cost of $194.92, QALYs of 0.44. In comparison, routine CXR demonstrated an increase of $821.42 in cost with 0.43 QALYs. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis the clinical observation strategy was found cost-effective in 99.5% of 10,000 iterations.

CONCLUSION

In trauma patients with clinical and radiographic evidence of a resolved HPTX, the adoption of clinical observation in lieu of post-TT removal CXR is cost-effective. Routine CXR following TT removal accrues more cost without additional benefit. The practice of routinely obtaining a CXR following TT removal should be scrutinized.

Are Chest Radiographs Routinely Indicated After Chest Tubes Placed for Non-Surgical Reasons Are Removed?

Background

The insertion and subsequent removal of chest tubes are frequently performed procedures for the management of pneumothoraces, pleural effusions, and cardio-thoracic surgical interventions. A chest radiograph is commonly obtained after the removal of a chest tube to rule out the interval development of a pneumothorax. This practice has been questioned in various retrospective and prospective studies conducted on surgical patient populations, showing little to no benefits in performing routine chest X-rays (CXRs) after chest tube removal unless clinical symptoms such as worsening respiratory status and hemodynamic compromise are present.

Material and Methods

A four-year retrospective study was conducted using the Cleveland Clinic Foundation database. A chart review was performed, and 1,032 patients were screened, with 200 patients meeting inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria included patients who underwent chest tube insertion for non-surgical reasons. The primary outcome was the percentage of clinically significant pneumothoraces detected by routine CXR after chest tube removal.

Results

Out of the 200 patients included in the study, 53 had a CXR after chest tube removal showing a residual pneumothorax. Out of the 53 patients, 50 ended up not needing chest tube re-insertion, as the patients were asymptomatic and hemodynamically stable. Only three patients required chest tube re-insertion due to respiratory symptoms and significant hemodynamic changes after the chest tubes were removed. In all three cases, the symptoms manifested prior to the CXRs being obtained; therefore, the decision to reinsert each chest tubes was made based on clinical signs rather than imaging. As expected, the practice of repeating CXRs after removal of the chest tubes resulted in delayed discharges despite patients reporting no symptoms and being hemodynamically stable.

Conclusions

Our study findings correlate with prior smaller studies on surgical patients. Symptoms and hemodynamic data seem to be a better predictor of whether a patient will require chest tube re-insertion or not. Routine CXR after chest tube removal also leads to prolonged hospital stay.

Chest Tube Management Practices by Trauma Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Chest tube (CT) placement is among the most common procedures performed by trauma surgeons; evidence guiding CT management is limited and tends toward thoracic surgery patients. The study goal was to identify current CT management practices among trauma providers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed a Web-based multiple-choice survey to assess CT management practices of trauma providers who were active, senior, or provisional members (n = 1890) of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and distributed via e-mail. Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

The response rate was 39% (n = 734). Ninety-one percent of respondents were attending surgeons, the remainder fellows or residents. Regarding experience, 36% of respondents had five or fewer years of practice, 54% 10 y or fewer, and 79% 20 y or fewer. Attendings were more likely than trainees to place pigtail catheters for stable patients with pneumothorax (PTX). Attendings with experience of <5 y were more likely to choose a pigtail than more experienced surgeons for elderly patients with PTX. Respondents preferred standard size CTs for hemothorax and unstable patients with PTX, and larger tubes for unstable patients with hemothorax. Most respondents (53%) perceived the quality of evidence for trauma CT management to be low and cited personal experience and training as the main factors driving their practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma CT management is variable and nonstandardized, depending mostly on clinician training and personal experience. Few surgeons identify their practice as evidence based. We offer compelling justification for the need for trauma CT management research to determine best practices.

Is a Chest Radiograph Required After Removal of Chest Tubes in Children?

Our objective was to determine the clinical value of obtaining a chest radiograph after removal of a chest tube. We conducted a retrospective chart review of pediatric general surgical patients with a chest tube in place after a thoracic procedure over a 3-year time period. Postremoval films were considered to be of value if they led to a change in clinical management. Of 468 patients who had a thoracic procedure, 281 patients had a chest tube and a postremoval film. In 263 patients (93.6%) there was no change in the postremoval film result compared with baseline. Only two patients (0.7%) required an intervention based on symptoms, not based on the postremoval film. Eliminating routine postremoval radiographs after chest tube removal in pediatric patients will lessen radiation exposure and provide cost savings with no adverse impact on outcome.

Do X-rays after chest tube removal change patient management?

BACKGROUND

A link between childhood radiation and future cancer risks exists, and reduction of unnecessary radiation in childhood has been recommended. Pneumothoraces, pleural effusions, and many surgical procedures require placement of a chest tube/pigtail catheter. Traditional management is daily x-rays, with an x-ray after tube removal. Our hypothesis is the "post pull" x-ray rarely results in changing clinical management of the patient.

METHODS

With IRB approval, a 5-year retrospective chart review was performed. Inclusion criteria were chest tube or pigtail placed for any reason with complete records. Data collected were demographics, reason for and duration of placement, number of x-rays done prior to and after removal. Primary outcome was whether the "post pull" x-ray changed clinical management.

RESULTS

A total of 179 episodes were evaluated. Seventeen were excluded for incomplete data, or death/transfer of the patient with the tube in situ. Forty-nine tubes/pigtails were placed for pneumothorax, 48 for pleural effusion/empyema, 9 for hemothorax, and 51 during operative procedure. A median of 5 x-rays was done post insertion. 99% of the patients (160/162) had a "post pull" x-ray performed after tube removal. In 9 cases the x-ray changed patient management.

CONCLUSIONS

X-ray after chest tube/pigtail removal rarely changes patient management. We recommend considering imaging if there are clinical symptoms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis study, level II (retrospective cohort).

What is the yield of routine chest radiography following tube thoracostomy for trauma?

INTRODUCTION

Routine chest radiography (CXR) following tube thoracostomy (TT) is a standard practice in most trauma centres worldwide. Evidence supporting this routine practice is lacking and the actual yield is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 1042 patients over a 4-year period who had a routine post-insertion CXR performed in accordance with current ATLS® recommendations.

RESULTS

A total 1042 TTs were performed on 1004 patients. Ninety-one per cent of patients (913/1004) were males, and the median age for all patients was 24 years. Seventy-five per cent of all injuries (756/1004) were from penetrating trauma, and the remaining 25% (248/1004) were from blunt. The initial pathologies requiring TT were: haemopneumothorax: 34% (339/1042), haemothroax: 31% (314/1042), simple pneumothorax: 25% (256/1042), tension pneumothorax: 8% (77/1042) and open pneumothorax: 5% (54/1042). One hundred and three patients had TTs performed on clinical grounds alone without a pre-insertion CXR [Group A]. One hundred and ninety-one patients had a pre-insertion CXR but had persistent clinical concerns following insertion [Group B]. Seven hundred and ten patients had pre-insertion CXR but no clinical concerns following insertion [Group C]. Overall, 15% (152/1004) [9 from Group A, 111 from Group B and 32 from Group C] of all patients had their clinical management influenced as a direct result of the post-insertion CXR.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the widely accepted practice of routine CXR following tube thoracostomy, the yield is relatively low. In many cases, good clinical examination post tube insertion will provide warnings as to whether problems are likely to result. However, in the more rural setting, and in resource challenged environments, there is a relatively high yield from the CXR, which alters management. Further prospective studies are needed to establish or refute the role of the existing ATLS® guidelines in these specific environments.

Is routine chest radiograph necessary after chest tube removal?

BACKGROUND

Obtaining a chest radiograph (CXR) after chest tube (CT) removal to rule out a pneumothorax is a universal practice. However, the yield of this CXR has not been well documented. Additionally, most iatrogenic pneumothoraces resulting from CT removal are atmospheric in origin, asymptomatic, and can be observed. Recently, we have begun to discontinue routine CXR for CT removal. We evaluated our experience with CT removal to clarify the usefulness of routine post CT removal CXR.

METHODS

After IRB approval, a retrospective study was conducted on patients who had a CT placed in the past decade. Cardiac patients requiring a CT were excluded. Patient demographics, diagnosis, treatments, and outcomes were collected. Patients were divided into two groups, those with a CXR after CT removal (Group 1) and those without (Group 2). Percentages were compared with Chi square with Yates correction.

RESULTS

462 patients were identified (group 1=327, group 2=135). Indications for CT included; empyema (n=176), lung resection (n=146), pneumothorax (n=71), pleural effusion (n=26), spinal fusion (n=20), trauma (n=16), and miscellaneous (n=7). Seven patients (2.1%) in group 1 required reinsertion for pneumothorax (n=4), empyema (n=2), and pleural effusion (n=1) compared to 1 patient (0.7%) in group 2 who required reinsertion for pleural effusion. This difference was not significant (P=0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

In non-cardiac patients with a CT, tube reinsertion is uncommon and tube replacement is secondary to symptoms. Therefore, routine post CT removal CXR is not necessary. CXR in these patients should be obtained based upon clinical indications after CT removal.

Chest drainage

Infectious, traumatic, or neoplastic processes in the chest often result in fluid collections within the pleural, parenchymal, or mediastinal spaces. The same fundamental principles that guide drainages of the abdomen can be applied to the chest. This review discusses various pathologic conditions of the thorax that can result in the abnormal accumulation of fluid or air, and their management using image-guided methods.

Just-in-time cost-effective off-the-shelf remote telementoring of paramedical personnel in bedside lung sonography-a technical case study

PURPOSE

Remote telementored ultrasound (RTMUS) is a new discipline that allows a remote expert to guide variably experienced clinical responders through focused ultrasound examinations. We used the examination of the pleural spaces after tube thoracostomy (TT) removal by a nurse with no prior ultrasound experience as an illustrative but highly accurate example of the technique using a simple cost-effective system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The image outputs of a handheld ultrasound machine and a head-mounted Web camera were input into a customized graphical user interface and streamed over a freely available voice over Internet protocol system that allowed two-way audio and visual communication between the novice examiner and the remote expert. The bedside nurse was then guided to examine the anterior chest of a patient who had recently had bilateral TTs removed. The team sought to determine the presence or absence of any recurrent pneumothoraces using the standard criteria for the ultrasound diagnosis of post-removal pneumothorax (PTXs). An upright chest radiograph (CXR) was obtained immediately after the RTMUS examination.

RESULTS

The RTMUS system enabled the novice user to learn how to hold the ultrasound probe, where to place it on the chest, and thereafter to diagnose a subtle unilateral PTX characterized as "tiny" on the subsequent formal CXR report.

CONCLUSIONS

As ultrasound has almost limitless clinical utility, using simple but advanced informatics and communication technologies has potential to improve worldwide healthcare delivery. RTMUS could be used both to enhance the information content as well as to digitally document important physiologic findings in any clinical encounter wherever a portable ultrasound and Internet connectivity are available.

Thin Chest Wall is an Independent Risk Factor for the Development of Pneumothorax after Chest Tube Removal

The factors contributing to the development of pneumothorax after removal of chest tube thoracostomy are not fully understood. We hypothesized that development of post pull pneumothorax (PPP) after chest tube removal would be significantly lower in those patients with thicker chest walls, due to the “protective” layer of adipose tissue. All patients on our trauma service who underwent chest tube thoracostomy from July 2010 to February 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient age, mechanism of trauma, and chest Abbreviated Injury Scale score were analyzed. Thoracic CTs were reviewed to ascertain chest wall thickness (CW). Thickness was measured at the level of the nipple at the midaxillary line, as perpendicular distance between skin and pleural cavity. Chest X-ray reports from immediately prior and after chest tube removal were reviewed for interval development of PPP. Data are presented as average ± standard deviation. Ninety-one chest tubes were inserted into 81 patients. Patients who died before chest tube removal (n = 11), or those without thoracic CT scans (n = 13) were excluded. PPP occurred in 29.9 per cent of chest tube removals (20/67). When PPP was encountered, repeat chest tube was necessary in 20 per cent of cases (4/20). After univariate analysis, younger age, penetrating mechanism, and thin chest wall were found to be significant risk factors for development of PPP. Chest Abbreviated Injury Scale score was similar in both groups. Logistic regression showed only chest wall thickness to be an independent risk factor for development of PPP.