Original Article
Comparison of closed-chest drainage with rib resection closed drainage for treatment of chronic tuberculous empyema
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of closed-chest drainage with rib resection closed drainage of chronic tuberculous empyema.
Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 86 patients with tuberculous empyema in Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital from August 2010 to November 2015. Among these included patients, 22 patients received closed-chest drainage, and 64 patients received rib resection closed drainage.
Results: The results showed that after intercostal chest closed drain treatment, 2 (9.09%) patients were recovery, 13 (59.09%) patients had significantly curative effect, 6 (27.27%) patients had partly curative effect, and 1 (4.55%) patient had negative effect. After treatment of rib resection closed drainage, 9 (14.06%) patients were successfully recovery, 31 (48.44%) patients had significantly curative effect, 19 (29.69%) patients had partly curative effect, and 5 (7.81%) patients had negative effect. There was no significant difference in the curative effect (P>0.05), while the average catheterization time of rib resection closed drainage (130.05±13.12 days) was significant longer than that (126.14±36.84 days) in course of intercostal chest closed drain (P<0.05).
Conclusions: This study had demonstrated that closed-chest drainage was an effective procedure for treating empyema in young patients. It was less invasive than rib resection closed drainage and was associated with less severe pain. We advocated closed-chest drainage for the majority of young patients with empyema, except for those with other diseases.
Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 86 patients with tuberculous empyema in Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital from August 2010 to November 2015. Among these included patients, 22 patients received closed-chest drainage, and 64 patients received rib resection closed drainage.
Results: The results showed that after intercostal chest closed drain treatment, 2 (9.09%) patients were recovery, 13 (59.09%) patients had significantly curative effect, 6 (27.27%) patients had partly curative effect, and 1 (4.55%) patient had negative effect. After treatment of rib resection closed drainage, 9 (14.06%) patients were successfully recovery, 31 (48.44%) patients had significantly curative effect, 19 (29.69%) patients had partly curative effect, and 5 (7.81%) patients had negative effect. There was no significant difference in the curative effect (P>0.05), while the average catheterization time of rib resection closed drainage (130.05±13.12 days) was significant longer than that (126.14±36.84 days) in course of intercostal chest closed drain (P<0.05).
Conclusions: This study had demonstrated that closed-chest drainage was an effective procedure for treating empyema in young patients. It was less invasive than rib resection closed drainage and was associated with less severe pain. We advocated closed-chest drainage for the majority of young patients with empyema, except for those with other diseases.
