• A Wakai, R G O'Sullivan, and G McCabe.
• St Vincent's Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Dublin 4, Ireland. wakai@indigo.ie
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 1(1):CD004479.

BackgroundIn the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax, simple aspiration is technically easier to perform. A systematic review may better define the clinical effectiveness and safety of simple aspiration compared to intercostal tube drainage in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.ObjectivesTo compare the clinically efficacy and safety of simple aspiration and intercostal tube drainage in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.Search StrategyWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2006), and EMBASE (1980 to August 2006). We searched Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (August 2006). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors . We imposed no language restriction.Selection CriteriaRandomized controlled trials comparing simple aspiration with intercostal tube drainage in adults aged 18 and over with primary spontaneous pneumothorax.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. No statistical methods were necessary because only one study met the inclusion criteria.Main ResultsOf the 1239 publications obtained from the search strategy, we examined six studies. Five studies were excluded, and one study of 60 participants was eligible for inclusion. There was no difference in immediate success rate of simple aspiration when compared with intercostal tube drainage in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (relative risk (RR) = 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.40). There was no significant difference in the early failure rate between the two interventions: RR 1.12 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.13). Simple aspiration reduced the proportion of patients hospitalized (RR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75). There was no significant difference between the two interventions with regard to the following outcome measures: duration of hospitalization (weighted mean difference = 1.09; 95% CI 2.18 to 0.00); number of participants undergoing any procedure for lung pleurodesis within one year (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.22);and one year success rate (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.38).Authors' ConclusionsThere is no significant difference between simple aspiration and intercostal tube drainage with regard to: immediate success rate, early failure rate, duration of hospitalisation, one year success rate and number of patients requiring pleurodesis at one year. Simple aspiration is associated with a reduction in the per cent of patients hospitalized when compared with intercostal tube drainage.

7 keywords...

hide…