Skip to main content
Log in

Tube Thoracostomy Complications Increase Cost

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Tube thoracostomy (TT) can be an effective therapy for thoracic pathologies. Ineffective placement of TT is common and associated with significant complications. Complications require additional interventions to repair damaged tissues or replace dysfunctional TT. We hypothesize that complicated TT insertion increases cost to the hospital system.

Methods

Adult trauma patients requiring TT at a level 1 trauma center (2012–2013) were reviewed. Intraoperative or image-guided TT placements were excluded. Baseline demographics and TT insertion cost (normalized and assigned by hospital billing records) were recorded. Costs included initial TT equipment, radiographs, and subsequent operative or radiologic intervention to correct TT complications. Complications were categorized using previously validated method. Secondary outcomes included: number of TT inserted, number of chest radiographs performed, and TT dwell time utilizing a standardized TT discontinuation protocol.

Results

A total of 154 patients with 246 TT were included. Ninety TT (37%) had complication. Complication categories are postremoval (n = 15, 16.7%), insertional (n = 13, 14.4%), positional (n = 62, 68.9%). Overall median complicated TT cost was 9 times greater than uncomplicated TT insertion, p = 0.001. Insertional complications median cost 21 times greater than an uncomplicated, due to operative and radiologic interventions (p = 0.0001). Positional and postremoval complication rates increased median cost by 3 times compared to uncomplicated TT (p = 0.03). Operative or radiologic interventions (n = 10) were performed for organ injury or uncontrolled hemo-/pneumothorax. Increased dwell time median [IQR] was associated with complicated TT compared to uncomplicated 3 [1–5] versus 2 [1–3], p = 0.01.

Conclusion

TT is a common procedure. TT complications are often considered benign. However, patients with a complicated TT insertion, especially related to insertional subtypes, have markedly increased hospitalization costs due to need for operative or radiologic repair.

Level of evidence

Level V—retrospective study.

Study type

This is a retrospective single-institution study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stark DD, Federle MP, Goodman PC (1983) CT and radiographic assessment of tube thoracostomy. Am J Roentgenol 141(2):253–258

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sethuraman KN, Duong D, Mehta S, Director T, Crawford D, St. George J, Rathlev NK (2011) Complications of tube thoracostomy placement in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 40(1):14–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Monaghan SF, Swan KG (2008) Tube thoracostomy: the struggle to the “standard of care”. Ann Thorac Surg 86(6):2019–2022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Menger R, Telford G, Kim P, Bergey MR, Foreman J, Sarani B, Pascual J, Reilly P, Sims CA (2012) Complications following thoracic trauma managed with tube thoracostomy. Injury 43(1):46–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lim KE, Tai SC, Chan CY, Hsu YY, Hsu WC, Lin BC, Lee KT (2005) Diagnosis of malpositioned chest tubes after emergency tube thoracostomy: is computed tomography more accurate than chest radiograph? Clin Imaging 29(6):401–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Huber-Wagner S, Körner M, Ehrt A, Kay MV, Pfeifer KJ, Mutschler W, Kanz KG (2007) Emergency chest tube placement in trauma care—which approach is preferable? Resuscitation 72(2):226–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hernandez MC, Laan DV, Zimmerman S, Naik ND, Schiller HJ, Aho JM (2016) Tube thoracostomy: increased angle of insertion is associated with complications. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 81(2):366–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maurer, JR, Friedman PJ, Wing W (1982) Thoracostomy tube in an interlobar fissure: radiologic recognition of a potential problem. AJR Am J Roentgenol 139(6):1155–1161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Elsayed H, Roberts R, Emadi M, Whittle I, Shackcloth M (2010) Chest drain insertion is not a harmless procedure—are we doing it safely? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 11(6):745–748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chan L, Reilly KM, Henderson C, Kahn F, Salluzzo RF (1997) Complication rates of tube thoracostomy. Am J Emerg Med 15(4):368–370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bevis BLC, Berg-copas GM, Thomas W, Vasquez DG, Wetta-hall R, Lucas E, Brake D, Lucas E, Toumeh K, Harrison P (2008) Outcomes of tube thoracostomies performed by advanced practice providers versus trauma surgeons. Adv Nurs Pract 17(4):357–363

    Google Scholar 

  12. Baldt MM, Bankier AA, Germann PS, Pöschl GP, Skrbensky GT, Herold CJ (1995) Complications after emergency tube thoracostomy: assessment with CT. Radiology 195(2):539–543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bailey RC (2000) Complications of tube thoracostomy in trauma. J Accid Emerg Med 17(2):111–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Aho JM, Ruparel RK, Rowse PG, Brahmbhatt RD, Jenkins D, Rivera M (2015) Tube thoracostomy: a structured review of case reports and a standardized format for reporting complications. World J Surg 39(11):2691–2706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rising KL, Carr BG, Hess EP, Meisel ZF, Ranney ML, Vogel JA (2016) Patient-centered outcomes research in emergency care: opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Acad Emerg Med 23(4):497–502

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Thiels CA, Hanson KT, Yost KJ, Zielinski MD, Habermann EB, Cima RR (2016) Effect of hospital case mix on the hospital consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems star scores. Ann Surg 264(4):666–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moore EE, Cogbill TH, Jurkovich GJ, McAninch JW, Champion HR, Gennarelli TA, Malangoni MA, Shackford SR, Trafton PG (1992) Organ injury scaling. III: chest wall, abdominal vascular, ureter, bladder, and urethra. J Trauma 33(3):337–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W, Long WB (1974) The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 14(3):187–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication was made possible by CTSA Grant KL2 TR000136 (Zielinski) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute T32 HL105355 (Aho), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This publication was made possible by CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR000135.

Authors’ contribution

MCH carried out study design, data collection and analysis, visual graphic creation, and manuscript writing. HMZ was involved in data collection and manuscript editing. JMA performed study design and manuscript editing. SFH and MDZ took part in manuscript editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew C. Hernandez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hernandez, M.C., Zeb, M.H., Heller, S.F. et al. Tube Thoracostomy Complications Increase Cost. World J Surg 41, 1482–1487 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3897-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3897-7

Keywords

Navigation