A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Rigid Mini-Thoracoscopy Versus Semirigid Thoracoscopy in Undiagnosed Exudative Pleural Effusion: The MINT Randomized Controlled Trial. | LitMetric

Background: There is debate regarding the ideal instrument for medical thoracoscopy. The authors compared rigid mini-thoracoscopy with semirigid thoracoscopy for thoracoscopic pleural biopsy.

Methods: Consecutive subjects with undiagnosed exudative pleural effusion were randomized (1:1 ratio) to mini-thoracoscopy or semirigid thoracoscopy groups. The primary objective was a comparison of the diagnostic yield of pleural biopsy. Key secondary outcomes were the comparison of sedative/analgesic dose, operator-rated and patient-rated pain on visual analog scale (VAS), operator-rated overall procedural satisfaction (VAS), pleural biopsy size, and complications between the groups.

Results: Of the 88 screened subjects, 73 were randomized: 36 to mini-thoracoscopy and 37 to semirigid thoracoscopy. Diagnostic yield of pleural biopsy in the mini-thoracoscopy (69.4%) and semirigid thoracoscopy groups (81.1%) was similar on intention-to-treat analysis (P=0.25). Although the operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction scores were similar between groups (P=0.87), operator-rated pain [VAS (mean±SD), 43.5±16.7 vs. 31.7±15.8; P<0.001] and patient-rated pain (VAS, 41.9±17.3 vs. 32.1±16.5; P=0.02) scores were greater in the mini-thoracoscopy group. Mean dose of fentanyl and midazolam received was similar between the 2 groups (P=0.28 and 0.68, respectively). Biopsy size was larger in the mini-thoracoscopy group (16.1±4.5 vs. 8.3±2.9 mm; P<0.001). Three minor complications occurred in the mini-thoracoscopy group and 6 in the semirigid thoracoscopy group (P=0.11). There were no serious adverse events or procedure-related mortality.

Conclusion: Diagnostic yield of rigid mini-thoracoscopy is not superior to semirigid thoracoscopy. Use of semirigid thoracoscope may provide greater patient comfort.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000620DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

semirigid thoracoscopy
20
mini-thoracoscopy semirigid
12
pleural biopsy
12
rigid mini-thoracoscopy
8
undiagnosed exudative
8
exudative pleural
8
pleural effusion
8
thoracoscopy groups
8
diagnostic yield
8
yield pleural
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!