2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.06.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Massive Pneumoperitoneum: A Late Complication of the Denver Pleuroperitoneal Shunt

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…8,9) However, we could not control chylothorax by using a pleuroperitoneal shunt in the present case. The most likely cause is that the amount of pleural effusion produced in the left cavity was more than the amount that the peritoneal cavity could absorb due to small body size.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…8,9) However, we could not control chylothorax by using a pleuroperitoneal shunt in the present case. The most likely cause is that the amount of pleural effusion produced in the left cavity was more than the amount that the peritoneal cavity could absorb due to small body size.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Originally introduced by Leveen et al [138] in the 1970s, peritoneovenous shunting was a method devised whereby continuous abdominal paracentesis was facilitated by recirculating protein-rich ascitic fluid back into the central circulation by means of a surgically placed subcutaneous cannula with a one-way pressure valve. Although some still consider peritoneovenous shunting as a treatment of last resort in diuretic-resistant patients with contraindication to TIPS or pediatric serial paracentesis [139], the procedure has been virtually abandoned because of well-documented serious adverse events including shunt occlusion, peritoneal infection, ascitic leak, bleeding, disseminated intravascular coagulation, pneumothorax, and pneumoperitoneum [113,[140][141][142][143][144]. Despite an insignificant trend toward earlier relief of ascites compared with TIPS for patients [143], the host of complications and risk of early shunt dysfunction have made peritoneovenous shunts nearly obsolete.…”
Section: Volume Expansionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the improvement in renal function, only 1 patient in the peritovenous shunt group had prolonged survival (210 days), whereas in the remainder survival was 13.8 AE 2 days compared with 4.1 AE 0.6 days in the medical therapy group. The procedure has been virtually abandoned because of well-documented serious adverse events including shunt occlusion, peritoneal infection, ascitic leak, bleeding, disseminated intravascular coagulation, pneumothorax, and pneumoperitoneum [113,[140][141][142][143][144]. Despite an insignificant trend toward earlier relief of ascites compared with TIPS for patients [143], the host of complications and risk of early shunt dysfunction have made peritoneovenous shunts nearly obsolete.…”
Section: Volume Expansionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Shunts are placed in the chest with a catheter transporting chyle from the chest to the peritoneal cavity. Complications of pleuroperitoneal shunts include shunt occlusion, pneumoperitoneum, infection and shunt migration (52).…”
Section: Pleuroperitoneal Shuntsmentioning
confidence: 99%