多项研究表明，仅观察就足以治疗稳定的气胸。比较临床疗效,耐受性,以及治疗血流动力学稳定的成年气胸患者的安全性结果，本综述比较了单独观察和介入治疗.我们搜索了从成立到2020年6月24日的PubMed和GoogleScholar，以比较观察性治疗与常规治疗治疗成人气胸的随机对照试验（RCT）。不包括小儿年龄组和张力性气胸患者。在三个RCT中招募了46名患者。观察的失败率（相对风险（RR）4.30；95％CI=0.23-81.82，p=0.33）和死亡率（RR1.01；95％CI=0.31-3.33，p=0.98）与胸管相当。胸管和观察都有相当的并发症风险，包括张力性气胸和脓胸（RR3.15;95％CI=0.67-1）和（RR1.55;95％CI=0.21-11.56，p=0.67），分别。在胸管和观察之间，住院时间差异无统计学意义.我们得出的结论是，观察在治疗患有稳定气胸的成年患者方面与胸管一样安全有效。
Several studies indicate that observation alone is sufficient for the management of stable pneumothorax. To compare clinical efficacy, tolerability, and safety outcomes for treating hemodynamically stable adult patients with pneumothorax, the present review compared observation alone versus interventional procedures. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar from inception until June 24, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing observational therapy with conventional therapy for the treatment of adult pneumothorax. The pediatric age group and patients with tension pneumothorax were not included. Four hundred and forty-six patients were enrolled in three RCTs. The failure rate (relative risk (RR) 4.30; 95% CI = 0.23-81.82, p = 0.33) and mortality (RR 1.01; 95% CI = 0.31-3.33, p = 0.98) of observation were comparable to those of the chest tube. Chest tube and observation both carried comparable risks of complications, including tension pneumothorax and empyema (RR 3.15; 95% CI = 0.67-1) and (RR 1.55; 95% CI = 0.21-11.56, p = 0.67), respectively. Between chest tubes and observation, there was no statistically significant difference in the duration of hospital stay. We conclude that observation is as safe and effective at treating adult patients with stable pneumothorax as a chest tube.
PDF(Pubmed)