Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 11;19:4. doi: 10.1186/s12873-018-0213-2

Table 3.

Type of equipment used and speciality of physicians for aspiration and thoracic drainage

Type of treatment Category All SP* PSP* SSP p
n = 1868 n = 1510 n = 358
Thoracic drainage (n = 670)
Equipment 0.07
Chest tube, n (%) 568 (91%) 462 (92%) 106 (86.9%)
Pleurocath, n (%) 52 (8.3%) 38 (7.6%) 14 (11.5%)
Pigtail catheter, n (%) 1 (0.2%) 0 1 (0.8%)
Other, n (%) 3 (0.5%) 2 (0.4%) 1 (0.8%)
Speciality of physicians 0.3
Emergency physician, n (%) 363 (68.8%) 285 (68.7%) 78 (69%)
Respiratory medicine, n (%) 56 (10.6%) 40 (9.6%) 16 (14.2%)
Surgeon, n (%) 46 (8.7%) 36 (8.7%) 10 (8.8%)
Intensive care physician, n (%) 63 (11.9%) 54 (13%) 9 (8%)
Aspiration (n = 189)
Equipment 0.58
Needle thoracocentesis, n (%) 58 (80.6%) 50 (80.6%) 8 (80%)
Catheters, n (%) 7 (9.7%) 6 (9.7%) 1 (20%)
Other, n (%) 4 (5.6%) 4 (6.5%) 0
Pleurocath, n (%) 3 (4.2%) 2 (3.2%) 0
Speciality of physicians 0.12
Emergency physician, n (%) 115 (79.9%) 94 (81%) 21 (75%)
Respiratory medicine, n (%) 17 (11.8%) 11 (9.5%) 6 (21.4%)
Surgeon, n (%) 9 (6.3%) 9 (7.8%) 0
Intensive care physician, n (%) 3 (2.1%) 2 (1.7%) 0

SP spontaneous pneumothorax

PSP primary spontaneous pneumothorax

SSP secondary spontaneous pneumothorax

*122 patients excluded from analysis because randomised in the EXPRED study