The Pigtail Catheter for Pleural Drainage: A Less Invasive Alternative to Tube Thoracostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Thoracostomy tubes are a mainstay of treatment for removing fluid or air from the pleural space. Placement of a chest tube is, however, an invasive procedure with potential morbidity. In an effort to reduce these complications, the use of percutaneous pigtail catheters in place of traditional large-bore tubes for thoracostomy and pleural drainage has been described. The aim of the study was to determine the role of pigtail catheters in adult population for drainage of pleural effusion. Methods: It was an observational study. All consecutive patients with pleural effusion requiring drainage were subjected to either tube thoracostomy or pig tail drainage. A standardized questionnaire was prepared for retrieving data. Outcomes of interest were time to drain and total duration of hospital stay. Results: A total of 92 patients (71 men and 21 women; age range, 17 - 86 years; mean age, 54 ± 15 years) were enrolled into the study. Thirty-five patients were treated with traditional chest tubes, whereas 57 patients were treated with pigtail catheters. There were no significant differences in either drainage days or hospitalization days between the chest tube group and pigtail catheter group (9.81 ± 6 vs. 9 ± 5.6 and 13.8 ± 6 vs. 13 ± 5.7, respectively). Conclusions: The pigtail catheter offers reliable treatment of effusions and is a safe and less invasive alternative to tube thoracostomy. There was no significant difference in time to drain and duration of hospital stay in both the groups. J Curr Surg. 2016;6(2):52-56 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs300e
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".