Pigtail Catheter Compared to Formal Intercostal Catheter for the Management of Isolated Traumatic Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

(1) Background: The optimal management approach for adults with traumatic pneumothorax without haemothorax remains an area of debate. Specifically, there is lack of consensus as to whether insertion of a pigtail catheter is superior to a formal intercostal catheter in improving complication rates. (2) Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were systematically searched for studies evaluating pigtail catheters compared to formal intercostal catheters for the management of traumatic pneumothorax. Investigative outcomes of interest included pain, duration management, failure, need for formal thoracoscopic surgery, need for supplemental oxygen, length of stay, infection and overall total complications. (3) Results: Three studies evaluating 280 patients were included in this analysis. There was no significant difference in total complications, rates of failure, length of stay or duration of management between pigtail catheters and formal intercostal catheters. This evidence was based on studies of low to moderate risk of bias with poor control for confounding factors. (4) Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates lack of evidence to suggest pigtail catheters are superior to formal intercostal catheter for traumatic pneumothorax. These findings may reflect a true absence of effect between either approach for this patient cohort or non-committal findings in light of limitations of the underlying evidence. Further prospective trials with larger sample sizes and control for confounders are required to validate the outcomes between these two modalities of treatment.