AIMTo retrospectively compare the outcomes of catheter drainage, urokinase and ozone in management of empyema.METHODSRetrospective study included 209 patients (111 males and 98 females; age range 19 to 72 years) who were diagnosed with empyema. The patients were divided into 3 groups based on the therapy instituted: catheter drainage only (group I); catheter drainage and urokinase (group II); catheter drainage, urokinase and ozone (group III). Drainage was considered successful if empyema was resolved with closure of cavity, clinical symptoms were resolved, and need for any further surgical procedure was avoided. Success rate, length of stay (LOS), need for further surgery and hospital costs were compared between the three groups using the Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric test, with P < 0.05 considered significant.RESULTSOf the 209 patients with empyema, all catheters were placed successfully under CT guidance. Sixty-three patients were treated with catheters alone (group I), 64 with catheters and urokinase (group II), and 82 with catheters, urokinase and ozone (group III). Group I, group II and group III had success rates of 62%, 83% and 95% respectively (P < 0.05). Group I and group II had statistically longer LOS (P < 0.05) and higher hospital costs (P < 0.05) compared to group III. There were statistically significant differences between the three groups when comparing patients who converted into further surgery.CONCLUSIONThe combination of chest tube drainage, urokinase and ozone is a safe and effective therapeutic modality in thoracic empyema.

No abstract

No abstract

Computer tomography (CT)-guided chemonucleolysis combined with PCB leads to rapid pain relief, fewer postoperative pain of collagenase injection happen, and should be regarded as a useful treatment for the management of LDH.

No abstract