Thoracic Ultrasound as an Alternative to Chest X-ray in Thoracic Surgery Patients: A Single-Center Experience

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Chest X-ray (CXR) is currently the most used investigation for clinical follow-up after major noncardiac thoracic surgery. This study explores the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) as an alternative to CXR in the postoperative management of patients who undergo major thoracic procedures. Methods: The patients in our cohort were monitored with both a CXR and a lung ultrasonography after surgery and the day after chest drain removal. The LUS was performed by a member of the medical staff of our unit who was blinded to both the images and the radiologist’s report of the CXR. Findings were compared between the two methods. Results: In the immediate postoperative evaluation, 280 patients were compared, finding general agreement between the two procedures at 84% (kappa statistic, 0.603). The LUS showed a sensibility of 84.1%, a specificity of 84.3%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 60.9%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.8%. We evaluated 219 out of 280 patients in the postdrainage-removal setting due to technical issues. Concordance between the methods in the postdrainage-removal setting was 89% (kappa statistic, 0.761) with the LUS demonstrating an 82.2% sensibility, a 93.2% specificity, a PPV of 85.7%, and an NPV of 91.3%. Conclusions: The results of this study showed a substantial agreement between LUS and CXR, suggesting that the LUS could reduce the number of X rays in certain conditions. The high NPV allows for the exclusion of PNX and pleural effusion without the need to expose patients to radiation. Discrepancies were noted in cases of mild pneumothorax or modest pleural effusion, without altering the clinical approach.