Methods: Between January 2006 and January 2011, data of a total of 52 patients (27 males, 25 females; mean age 61.8 years; range 45 to 78 years) underwent pericardiopleural window due to pleural effusion were retrospectively analyzed. Pericardial effusion was diagnosed with echocardiography or computed tomography. A pericardiopleural window was created via a small anterior thoracotomy in the right or left sixth or seventh intercostal space according to the main pathology. Incisions were about 5 to 7 cm long. A 2x2 cm window in size was created from anterior surface of the pericardium to the phrenic nerve.
Results: Indications for pericardiopleural window creation were malignant effusions in 20 patients, idiopathic causes in 20 patients, infective causes in nine patients and previous cardiac surgery in three patients. The mean duration of surgery was 42.2 minutes (range, 32 to 65). No intraoperative and postoperative mortality and morbidity was seen. The mean length of hospital stay was 5.6 (range 2 to 15) days.
Conclusion: Pericardiopleural window creation with small anterior thoracotomy is an effective technique for drainage of the pericardial fluid and pericardial biopsy.
Repeated pericardiocentesis may be required and the need for more efficient and long-lasting solutions may arise. The implementation of surgical procedures which can more efficiently relieve symptoms and prevent heart failure and mortality risk due to cardiac tamponade is required. Pericardial fenestration is a surgical procedure that can sometimes be implemented as the last resort.[1] Chronic pericardial effusions resistant to medical therapy can effectively be treated by a creating of pericardiopleural window. During the procedure, effective drainage and taken of biopsy specimens can be performed as both diagnostic and therapeutic targets.[2]
In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of pericardiopleural window created by small anterior thoracotomy in the diagnosis and treatment of the pericardial effusions.
Figure 2: An image of postoperative skin incision.
Statistical analysis
The average and standard deviation of the data were
calculated by using Excel program (Microsoft®, 2010,
USA).
Although there are numerous methods for treating pericardial effusion, we used pericardial window operation to eliminate pericardial tamponade risk permanently. In addition, massive intractable pericardial effusions can be treated with pericardial window operation alone successfully.[1] It is recommended for the definitive treatment of pericardial effusion with malignant origin.[3,7] Surgical methods with minimal invasive techniques are also being more often used.[3] The most prevalent surgical approaches include subxiphoid and transthoracic approaches which are also well-tolerated by patients. In a study comparing both techniques, the authors reported that both required short operation times with similar postoperative complication rates, and length of hospital stay as well as recurrence rates were also low with both procedures.[6] Furthermore, minimally invasive surgery (video-assisted thoracoscopy), laparoscopic transabdominal pericardial window, and percutaneous balloon pericardial window are other common techniques used for surgical treatment of pericardial effusion.[7,8-10]
The main limitation of the present study is its retrospective desing. However, this rare type of surgery is uncommonly able to be performed in the prospective setting in a single-center. Therefore, large-scale studies which compare surgical tecniques in terms of pleural effusion types should be designed to establish a definite conclusion.
In conclusion, pericardiopleural window creation with small anterior thoracotomy is an effective technique for drainage of the pericardial fluid and pericardial biopsy.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to
the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research
and/or authorship of this article.
1) Kamata Y, Iwamoto M, Aoki Y, Kishaba Y,
Nagashima T, Nara H, et al. Massive intractable pericardial
effusion in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus
treated successfully with pericardial fenestration alone.
Lupus 2008;17:1033-5.
2) Vogel B, Mall W. Thoracoscopic pericardial fenestration-
-diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. Pneumologie
1990;44:184-5.
3) Komanapalli C, Sukumar M. Thoracoscopic pericardial
window. Available from: http://www.ctsnet.org/sections/
clinicalresources/thoracic/expert_tech-32.html. [Accessed:
May 25, 2010].
4) Laham RJ, Cohen DJ, Kuntz RE, Baim DS, Lorell BH,
Simons M. Pericardial effusion in patients with cancer:
outcome with contemporary management strategies. Heart
1996;75:67-71.
5) Mueller XM, Tevaearai HT, Hurni M, Ruchat P, Fischer AP,
Stumpe F, et al. Long-term results of surgical subxiphoid
pericardial drainage. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;45:65-9.
6) Liberman M, Labos C, Sampalis JS, Sheiner NM, Mulder DS.
Ten-year surgical experience with nontraumatic pericardial
effusions: a comparison between the subxyphoid and
transthoracic approaches to pericardial window. Arch Surg
2005;140:191-5.
7) Toth I, Szucs G, Molnar TF. Mediastinoscope-controlled parasternal fenestration of the pericardium: definitive
surgical palliation of malignant pericardial effusion. J
Cardiothorac Surg 2012;7:56.
8) del Barrio LG, Morales JH, Delgado C, Benito A, Larrache J,
Martinez-Cuesta A, et al. Percutaneous balloon pericardial
window for patients with symptomatic pericardial effusion.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2002;25:360-4.