Effectiveness of medical thoracoscopy and thoracoscopic talc poudrage in patients with exudative pleural effusion

8Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of medical thoracoscopy (MT) and thoracoscopic talc poudrage (TTP) in patients with exudative pleural effusion. METHODS We evaluated the diagnostic yields, complications and outcomes of MT and TTP in 41 consecutive patients with symptomatic pleural effusions who were planned to undergo both procedures from 1 December 2011 to 30 November 2012. Data was reviewed retrospectively and prospectively up to March 2013. RESULTS Among the 41 patients, 36 underwent MT with the intent of biopsy and talc pleurodesis, 2 underwent MT for pleurodesis only and 3 had failed MT. Aetiologies of pleural effusion included lung cancer (n = 14), tuberculosis (n = 9), breast cancer (n = 7), ovarian cancer (n = 2), malignant mesothelioma (n = 1), congestive cardiac failure (n = 1), peritoneal dialysis (n = 1) and hepatic hydrothorax (n = 1); pleural effusion was undiagnosed in five patients. The overall diagnostic yield of MT, and the yield in tubercular and malignant pleural effusions were 77.8%, 100.0% and 82.6%, respectively; it was inconclusive in 22.2%. Complications that occurred were self-limiting, with no procedure-related mortality. The 30‑day mortality rate was 17.1%. A total of 15 patients underwent TTP. The 30-, 60- and 90-day success rates were 77.8%, 80.0% and 80.0%, respectively, with one patient having complications (i.e. empyema). The 30-day mortality was 40.0%. CONCLUSION MT is a safe procedure with high diagnostic yields in undiagnosed pleural effusions. TTP is an effective method to stop recurrence of pleural effusions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Verma, A., Taha, A., Venkateswaran, S., & Tee, A. (2015). Effectiveness of medical thoracoscopy and thoracoscopic talc poudrage in patients with exudative pleural effusion. Singapore Medical Journal, 56(5), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2015075

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free