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.     

Is routine roentgenography needed after closed tube thoracostomy removal?

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of chest radiograph protocol after tube thoracostomy tube (CT) removal. METHODS: Retrospective review (July of 1995 to July of 1996) of 141 patients with CT followed throughout their hospitalization. Excluded patients died (23 patients) or had thoracotomy (13 patients) before CT removal. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients had 113 CT removed (mean age, 36.9 years; Injury Severity Score = 23.4; CT duration, 5.0 days). Protocol chest radiographs were performed on average at 7.9 and 22.1 hours. Recurrent pneumothorax (RHPTX = new interpleural air) occurring in 12 patients (11%) and persistent pneumothorax (PHPTX = same volume of interpleural air) occurring in 13 patients (12%) caused no clinical problems and were treated without tube replacement. Three patients had symptoms after removal; none had RHPTX. Two patients had clinical signs; one reaccumulated a hemothorax requiring CT replacement, the other improved without replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant RHPTX/PHPTX after CT removal is infrequent. Signs not symptoms detect CT removal complications. At our institution, chest radiographs are obtained in a delayed manner from protocol and offer no benefit over clinical assessment.     

Is ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy? A prospective, randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE: We conducted a prospective, randomized controlled study to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of ureteral stenting after ureteroscopic lithotripsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 patients who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy were equally randomized into a stented or a nonstented group. The inclusion criteria were stone 6 to 10 mm., absence of polyp or stricture in the ureter and no mucosal injury during ureteroscopy. The operation was performed with a 6Fr rigid ureteroscope without ureteral dilation and stones were fragmented with a 1.9Fr electrohydraulic lithotriptor without extraction. A 7Fr double pigtail stent was placed in the stented group for 3 days after ureteroscopy. Urinalysis, plain x-ray and renosonography were performed before and after lithotripsy in each patient. Subjective symptoms and pain score were recorded on admission to the hospital and 3 days postoperatively. RESULTS: The stone-free rate was 100% in each group and preoperative hydronephrosis equally resolved in both groups. Mean pain score plus or minus standard deviation improved significantly in the nonstented (6.33 +/- 1.81 preoperatively to 2.30 +/- 1.93 postoperatively, paired Student's t test p <0.0001) and stented (7.10 +/- 1.03 to 2.30 +/- 2.22, p < 0.0001) group. There was no statistical difference in pain reduction between the 2 groups (p = 0.18). The amount of extra parenteral analgesic used was similar in both groups. One patient in the nonstented group visited the emergency room for postoperative renal colic, 25 (83.3%) patients in the stented group complained of at least 1 irritative bladder symptom and only 4 (13.3%) in the nonstented group experienced bladder discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: After uncomplicated ureteroscopic electrohydraulic lithotripsy patients without ureteral stenting tend to have similar renal function recovery and satisfactory pain reduction with less irritative symptoms compared to those treated with a ureteral stent. We suggest that it is not necessary to place a ureteral stent routinely after uncomplicated ureteroscopic electrohydraulic lithotripsy for stones smaller than 1 cm.     

Erratum to: Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm?

We evaluated the need for routine ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. A total of 43 patients underwent URSL for lower ureteral stones larger than 10 mm. They were randomized into a stented (21) or an unstented (22) group. URSL was performed by using a semirigid ureteroscope and pneumatic lithotripter without ureteral dilation. Additional forceps application (AFA) was used to remove fragments >/=4 mm. Patients in each group were assessed for stone-free rate, stone size, operative time, AFA, hospitalization time, postoperative pain, irritative voiding symptoms, hematuria, re-hospitalization and stricture formation. The stone-free rate was 100% in each group. There were no statistical differences in the two groups regarding stone size, operative time, AFA, postoperative pain, hematuria and hospitalization time. However, irritative voiding symptoms of the stented group were significantly higher than those in the unstented group (P < 0.05). One patient (4.5%) in the unstented group required re-hospitalization for severe flank pain with fever (>38 degrees C) compared to one patient (4.7%) in the stented group for proximal stent migration (P > 0.05). Stricture formation was not demonstrated in either group at 3 months follow-up excretory urography (EXU). Our results demonstrate that ureteral stenting after uncomplicated URSL without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm does not appear to be necessary if AFA is used to remove fragments >/=4 mm, thereby reducing morbidity of patients and risk of re-hospitalization.     

Is routine removal of syndesmotic screw justified? A meta-analysis

BackgroundSyndesmosis injuries are common with rotational ankle injuries, and placement of a positional syndesmotic screw to maintain its reduction is used as the ligaments heal. There is no clear consensus on routine removal or retention of syndesmotic screw. This study aimed to appraise the current evidence both on removal and retention of syndesmotic screw and to conduct a meta-analysis comparing outcomes and rate of complications of syndesmotic screw removal and retention.MethodsFollowing PROSPERO registration, a systematic search using was performed using keywords (‘Syndesmosis’ OR ‘Syndesmotic’ OR ‘Transsyndesmotic’ OR ‘distal tibiofibular’) AND (‘Screw’) AND (‘Removal’ OR ‘Retention’) AND ‘Outcome’ in various databases. No language restrictions were applied and the meta-analysis incorporated the PRISMA statement. VAS (Visual analogue scale for pain), AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot And Ankle Society) scores expressed as mean ± SD, and both groups’ complication rates were compared. Comparisons with a random-effects model were performed, and heterogeneity between the studies was calculated using the I2 statistic. T-test for two independent sample means was used to compare pooled mean and Z-test for two proportions to assess the difference in the proportion of complications.ResultsA total of 7 studies with 522 patients were included in this review for analysis. Pooled analysis showed non-significant difference in AOFAS score (MD = −1.84; 95% CI: −4.33 to 0.66; p = 0.150) as well as for VAS score (MD = −0.48; 95% CI: −1.56 to 0.60; p = 0.390) between the two groups. The value of z and p-value for complication rates was 0.6021 and 0.5485, respectively, which was not significant.ConclusionThere doesn’t appear to be a difference in functional outcome, pain scores, and complication rates between patients who had their syndesmotic screws removed and those where screw was retained. The fear of inferior outcomes with retained screws is thus unfounded, and routine removal adds to morbidity and financial burden. In conclusion, present data does not support the routine removal of the intact syndesmosis screw, and a change in practice is needed to abandon routine syndesmotic screw removal.     

Is a routine liquid contrast swallow following laparoscopic gastric banding mandatory?

Background: The authors assess the value of liquid contrast medium swallow as a method to detect postoperative complications after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) for the treatment of morbid obesity. Methods: From January 1996 to January 2001, 350 morbidly obese patients (295 women, 55 men) underwent a LAGB operation. All data were prospectively collected in a computerized databank. All patients underwent a jopomidol swallow (JS) study in the early postoperative phase to exclude perforation of the esophagus or stomach, which is one of the most serious complications occurring after the LAGB operation. Furthermore, the JS was performed to confirm band position and to exclude early pouch dilatation. Results: Out of the 350 LAGB operations, 6(1.8%) early pouch dilatations and 4(1.2%) stomach perforations occurred. All early pouch dilatations were recognized on postoperative JS and immediately repaired laparoscopically. Of the perforations, one was recognized intraoperatively, and the other three were diagnosed postoperatively, either by contrast media extravasation on the JS (two patients) or by computer tomography. Conclusion: Presently,all patients undergo routine postoperative JS, which exposes them to radiation, causes patient discomfort, and entails additional costs of approximately 100 US$ per patient. Of the last 250 patients in our series, there have not been any cases of early pouch dilatation and since 1998 only one case of perforation has occurred, which could be easily suspected clinically. Therefore, we believe that in experienced centers, it is not necessary to perform routine postoperative contrast media studies and recommend JS only in cases of complicated postoperative courses.     

Is routine abdominal drainage necessary after liver resection?

Purpose

Prophylactic abdominal drainage is performed routinely after liver resection in many centers. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and validity of liver resection without abdominal drainage and to clarify whether routine abdominal drainage after liver resection is necessary.

Methods

Patients who underwent elective liver resection without bilio-enteric anastomosis between July, 2006 and June, 2012 were divided into two groups, based on whether surgery was performed before or after, we adopted the no-drain strategy. The “former group” comprised 256 patients operated on between July, 2006 and June, 2009 and the “latter group” comprised 218 patients operated between July, 2009 and June, 2012. We compared the postoperative complications, percutaneous drainage, and postoperative hospital stay between the groups, retrospectively.

Results

There were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative bleeding, intraabdominal infection, or bile leakage between the groups. Drain insertion after liver resection did not reduce the rate of percutaneous drainage. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the latter group.

Conclusion

Routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after liver resection without bilio-enteric anastomosis.

     

Is routine postoperative enteral feeding after oesophagectomy worthwhile?

A best evidence topic in surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether, in patients undergoing an oesophagectomy for cancer, immediate postoperative enteral feeding (via percutaneous jejunostomy or nasojejunostomy) provides better patient outcomes as compared to waiting until oral feeding can be instituted. Four randomized controlled trials represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The first study randomized 25 patients into enteral feeding via jejunostomy (n?=?13) versus a routine diet without jejunostomy (n?=?12). The authors found no statistical difference in outcomes including length of stay, anastomotic complications and mortality. They did not report any catheter-related complications. A second study included patients undergoing an oesophagectomy or a pancreatodudenectomy, randomized to immediate postoperative jejunostomy feeding (n?=?13) or remaining unfed for 6 days (n?=?15). They reported one incident of detachment of the catheter from the abdominal wall. They also noted a statistically significant decrease in vital capacity and FEV1 in enterally fed patients. There was no difference in length of stay or anastomotic complications. They concluded that there was no indication for routine use of immediate postoperative enteral feeding in those patients without significant preoperative malnutrition. A Third report randomized their post-oesophagectomy patients into enteral feeding via jejunostomy (n?=?20) versus crystalloid only (n?=?20). The also found no difference in length of stay, anastomotic leak rate or mortality. One catheter was removed due to concerns over respiratory function. They also concluded that there was no measurable benefit in early enteral feeding. The last of these 4 studies randomized patients into naso-duodenal feeding (n?=?71) and jejunostomy feeding groups (n?=?79). As in previous trials, they found no statistically significant difference between length of stay or anastomotic leak rates. Mortality was higher in the jejunostomy group, although the team did not attribute the deaths to the catheter. They found both methods equally effective in providing postoperative nutrition. In summary, all the trials concluded that routine postoperative enteral nutrition was feasible, but there was no evidence suggesting that it conferred any clinical benefits.     

Is removal of clavicle plate after fracture union necessary?

Purpose:

To review whether clavicle plates should be removed after union of the fracture.

Materials and Methods:

48 patients with middle third clavicle fractures treated by plating were assessed with UCLA shoulder rating and Oxford shoulder scores.

Results:

At an average follow up of 13 months,96% of 27 patients with plates out recommended its removal. 86% of 21 patients with plates in were happy to keep them.

Conclusions:

We recommend leaving clavicle plates in unless requested by the patient.

Level of Evidence:

IV-retrospective study.