Manual aspiration of a pneumothorax after CT-guided lung biopsy: outcomes and risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Quantify the outcomes following pneumothorax aspiration and influence upon chest drain insertion. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent aspiration for the treatment of a pneumothorax following a CT percutaneous transthoracic lung biopsy (CT-PTLB) from January 1, 2010 to October 1, 2020 at a tertiary center. Patient, lesion and procedural factors associated with chest drain insertion were assessed with univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: A total of 102 patients underwent aspiration for a pneumothorax following CT-PTLB. Overall, 81 patients (79.4%) had a successful pneumothorax aspiration and were discharged home on the same day. In 21 patients (20.6%), the pneumothorax continued to increase post-aspiration and required chest drain insertion with hospital admission. Significant risk factors requiring chest drain insertion included upper/middle lobe biopsy location [odds ratio (OR) 6.46; 95% CI 1.77–23.65, p = 0.003], supine biopsy position (OR 7.06; 95% CI 2.24–22.21, p < 0.001), emphysema (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.10–8.87, p = 0.028), greater needle depth ≥2 cm (OR 4.00; 95% CI 1.44–11.07, p = 0.005) and a larger pneumothorax (axial depth ≥3 cm) (OR 16.00; 95% CI 4.76–53.83, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, larger pneumothorax size and supine position during biopsy remained significant for chest drain insertion. Aspiration of a larger pneumothorax (radial depths ≥3 cm and ≥4 cm) had a 50% rate of success. Aspiration of a smaller pneumothorax (radial depth 2–3 cm and <2 cm) had an 82.6% and 100% rate of success, respectively. Conclusion: Aspiration of pneumothorax after CT-PTLB can help reduce chest drain insertion in approximately 50% of patients with larger pneumothoraces and even more so with smaller pneumothoraces (>80%). Advances in knowledge: Aspiration of pneumothoraces up to 3 cm was often associated with avoiding chest drain insertion and allowing for earlier discharge.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".