|
|
||||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
Southern California Permanente Medical Group Harbor City, CA
Correspondence to: Yossef Aelony, MD, FCCP, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 25825 Vermont Ave South, Harbor City, CA 90710; e-mail: yossef.x.aelony{at}kp.org
To the Editor:
Parulekar et al (July 2001)1 report an interesting retrospective review of malignant pleural effusions drained with small-bore catheters or large-bore chest tubes. Most of their patients received tetracycline as the sclerosant and not surprisingly showed only a 51 to 53% long-term success rate. Although the success rate is disappointing, it is noteworthy that smaller-bore catheters were as effective as large tubes.
Of perhaps greater importance is their allusion to the use of dry talc insufflation via a large-bore chest tube in a small subset of their series. Talc by thoracoscopic insufflation or by slurry has become the "gold standard" in pleurodesis during the past decade. Any effort to simplify the application of dry talc and thus avoid the need for thoracoscopy is noteworthy. Since there are few data anywhere on this approach, it would be of interest if the authors could provide more information on their talc insufflation subset: (1) of the 27 patients receiving talc, how many received it by insufflation via large tube, (2) what is the 30-day and long-term success rate of these patients, (3) how many milliliters (or grams) of talc were insufflated, and (4) how many days of drainage before and after talc insufflation?
References
National Cancer Institute of Canada Kingston, ON
Correspondence to: Wendy Parulekar, MD, Physician Coordinator, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Queens University, 82 Barrie St, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6; e-mail: wparulekar{at}ctg.queensu.ca
To the Editor:
In reply to your questions:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |