Respiratory medicine and research · 2026
Assessment of the interobserver reliability in discharge decision-making for patients undergoing thoracic surgery based on chest ultrasound compared to chest X-ray findings.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Guesmi Zaineb, Faure Martin, Ballouhey Julia, Atlagh Lina, Bertin François, Chermat Anaelle, Rivera Caroline, Vincent François, Aguado Benoit, Tricard Jérémy
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Safe authorization of patient discharge after thoracic surgery must be ensured following chest tube removal. This decision is commonly based on chest X-ray findings. Chest ultrasound (US) has emerged as a potentially valuable alternative. The aim of this study was to assess the interobserver reliability of discharge authorization decisions based on chest X-ray compared with chest US findings.
METHODS: We conducted a single-center prospective study including 60 consecutive patients undergoing thoracic surgery. A semi-quantitative evaluation of pneumothorax, pleural effusion, subcutaneous emphysema, and lung consolidation was performed in a blinded fashion using both chest X-rays (interpreted by surgeons) and chest US (performed by pulmonology residents) at three time points: day 0, day 1, and after chest tube removal. Discharge eligibility was determined using a score derived from imaging findings.
RESULTS: AMONG THE 60 PATIENTS (MEAN AGE: 60.7 ± 14 years, 70% male), 42 (69%) underwent lung resection, and the remaining patients had mediastinal or pleural surgery. Both imaging modalities identified the same three patients who did not meet the theoretical discharge criteria (concordance rate: 100%, Po = 57+3/60, p < 0.0001). Agreement according to Fleiss' kappa was excellent for discharge decisions, but poor to slight for the evaluation of postoperative complications using chest X-ray and US.
CONCLUSIONS: Chest US reliably identifies patients requiring continued monitoring or repeat drainage after chest tube removal in the postoperative thoracic surgery setting. However, the interpretation of mild to moderate complications differed substantially between chest X-ray and chest US.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER NUMBER: NCT05545566, ID: 87RI22_0022.
METHODS: We conducted a single-center prospective study including 60 consecutive patients undergoing thoracic surgery. A semi-quantitative evaluation of pneumothorax, pleural effusion, subcutaneous emphysema, and lung consolidation was performed in a blinded fashion using both chest X-rays (interpreted by surgeons) and chest US (performed by pulmonology residents) at three time points: day 0, day 1, and after chest tube removal. Discharge eligibility was determined using a score derived from imaging findings.
RESULTS: AMONG THE 60 PATIENTS (MEAN AGE: 60.7 ± 14 years, 70% male), 42 (69%) underwent lung resection, and the remaining patients had mediastinal or pleural surgery. Both imaging modalities identified the same three patients who did not meet the theoretical discharge criteria (concordance rate: 100%, Po = 57+3/60, p < 0.0001). Agreement according to Fleiss' kappa was excellent for discharge decisions, but poor to slight for the evaluation of postoperative complications using chest X-ray and US.
CONCLUSIONS: Chest US reliably identifies patients requiring continued monitoring or repeat drainage after chest tube removal in the postoperative thoracic surgery setting. However, the interpretation of mild to moderate complications differed substantially between chest X-ray and chest US.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER NUMBER: NCT05545566, ID: 87RI22_0022.