Talk:Pneumothorax

Start

Question: What are the long-term effects of having a collapsed lung? How long does it usually take for a 25 year old male to recover from having a collapsed lung? 128.118.239.69 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The length of time to recover from a collapsed lung is related more to the degree of collapse(ie. the size of the pneumothorax) than to the patient's age. Respiratory physicians inform me that the time it takes for a pneumothorax to be reabsorbed is approximately 1 day per %size of pneumothorax - a 10% pneumothorax will resolve spontaneously in 10 days, a 30% pneumothorax in a month. This is assuming that there is no further air leak. Ongoing air leak will of course delay this process. In terms of a "collapsed lung", the time to resolution will depend on the underlying cause. Cancers and severe pneumonias will tend not to resolve if left untreated. 58.165.234.170 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that spontaneous pneumothorax is related to Marfan's syndrome? The article mentions height and connective tissue weakness as factors, which suggest a connection to me. 129.2.211.72 03:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is certainly an association, but the height is an independent risk factor. PMID 6732339 goes into the details (1984), but PMID 7300447 establishes that height without Marfanism is also a risk factor. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a sort of direct connection, in that Marfans Syndrome Sufferers have generally weaker connective tissue, this can be known to cause the air top escape from the lung into the chest cavity and a spontaneous pneumothorax. This is (Im am told) is only the case in a very small number of cases, most marfans sufferers who suffer a spontaneous pneumothorax, it is usually caused by the slight deformity in the rib cage and their tall, thin build. Anywho, I suffer from Marfans Syndrome and Recurrent Spontaneous Pneumothorax, and that is what I have been told. M

Does anyone know of any reference to the "flopping" sound mentioned by the article? I remember when I had a couple of pneumos, when laying on my back, there would be a clicking/popping sound with each ventricular contraction. I never found any reference to it at the time when I was researching. Potkettle 13:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

tension pneumothorax

Tension pneumothorax is condition serious enough that I believe it deserves a bit more attention.

I also inserted a bit more about percussion in diagnosis, as simply having no breath sounds can indicate consolidation rather than pneumothorax.

Also, thoracentesis is usually considered a distinct procedure from tube thoracostomy.

DocJohnny 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tension pneumothorax is what you want. JFW | T@lk 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I have cleaned up the article and added links to the tension article.DocJohnny 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That description of tension pneumothorax is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.162.181 (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrectly Labelled Image

The top-right main image with a chest x-ray is labelled a right-sided tension pneumothorax. Yet the image description labels it as left sided. Futher examination shows a shift of the mediastinal contents to the right side, seemingly confirming a left-sided pneumothorax. Am I mistaken or just being overcautious? --210.49.163.248 09:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (a confused med student)

Thanks for changing the image. --210.49.196.230 13:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Readability for the lay person

I was looking up "Collapsed lung" and got redirected to Pneumothorax, which I assume is the same thing as a collapsed lung - the introduction didn't say anything about this being the same as a collapsed lung, so I wasn't sure. The first paragraph seems like it's directed toward medical students instead of lay people like me. The Pathophysiology section seems a bit better. Could someone who knows what they're doing help the first paragraph be more friendly to us lay persons? The rest can remain technical but a friendly introduction would probably be the only part that is read by a lay person anyway. Thanks! --Rcronk 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC

Isnt collapsed lung different to pneumothorax? I agree the top paragraph is confusing. sara

The article now mentions "collapsed lung" in the intro paragraph, whereas previously it didn't. A pneumothorax is the most common type of collapsed lung, but there are others.Potkettle 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A pneumothorax is air in a potential space in the lung called the pleura cavity. its the bit between the lung and the ribcage. If there's enough air there it can push on the lung and cause part or all of it to collapse. There are lots of other things that can make a lung collapse, including things like mases, or pneumonia. In essence pneumothorax and collapsed lung are are often linked, but not the same thing. samantha 15th april 2007

The introduction is now much better and gives a lay person a basic understanding of what this is. Looks good - thanks! --Rcronk 19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This article now states that collapsed lung is the same thing as a pneumothorax, which it isn't. I would suggest that collapsed lung should have it's own article with a list of possible causes that include pneumothorax (and the others) to avoid this distinction being lost in the future. PsychoticSock (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Future Health Issues

Are there any health issues that a patient who suffered a pneumothorax can face later on in life?? I've heard they can have a higher risk of suffering lung problems i.e. decreased lung capacity, pneumothorax again, et cetera, and bad blood circulation. Is this true? When I was born I suffered a double pneumothorax. So I'm just wondering.Frills 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is an encyclopedia in the making, not a forum. If you find an answer to your question, could you post useful sources here please? JFW | T@lk 21:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

bagpipes

Now and then I come across the story of a teenage boy who gave himself a pneumothorax of some sort while playing bagpipes, in particular, the Great Highland Bagpipes. The story usually goes something like this: The boy was practicing for a longer stretch than usual, then experienced a sharp pain in the shoulders whereupon he put down his pipes. The next morning he wakes up and finds that his neck is painfully enlarged (sometimes grotesquely) and makes crackling sounds when touched. This is attributed to something blowing out in the lungs and air getting into the neck. It may be important to note that it's normal for the neck to bulge out slightly when playing the pipes due to the effort of blowing. Is this sort of injury possible? Frotz (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like subcutaneous emphysema, with or without a concomitant pneumothorax. Perhaps he should switch to playing the tin whistle or the harmonica. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that sustained exposure to intense sound waves at specific frequency can sever the lungs (physically tear tissue due to vibratory stress at key points, creating a tiny hole), allowing air into the pleural cavity. Tall young males are especially at risk of pneumothorax, as are those at high altitudes...all of these factors combined can account for this specific incident. 24.235.202.34 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture

There seems to be a low grade edit war on whether acupuncture can ever cause a pneumothorax. I suppose A size 14 needle and a good strong arm will do it, but that's not typical for acupuncture. Still, there's a steady stream of case reports that might make it a relevant issue.[1] JFW | T@lk 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've searched and searched and can only find publication agreeing that acupuncture can cause pneumothorax, no papers critical of acupuncture ever causing pneumothorax. I can't really find a 'dispute' going on here. The literature seems to be in agreement that adverse effects from acupuncture are uncommon, and almost entirely minor. However, pneumothorax as a consequence of acupuncture has been reported, and not just talked up by Ernst (see PMID: 19420954 for example). How about we include a very conservative statement like "Although rare, pneumothorax as a consequence of acupuncture has been reported." ?Waylah (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You've responded to a thread that's almost four years old. The main discussion is at the bottom of the page. JFW | T@lk 07:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! Not the whole lung!

In the fourth paragraph of the section entitled Clinical treatment, the article states, "In the situation that the chest tube does not seem to be helping the healing of the lung or if CAT scans show the presence of "blebs" on the surface of the lung orthoscopic surgery may be done in order to staple the lung closed." - emphasis added

I had this procedure recently to correct a situation where a bleb had ruptured, creating a hole in the lung which resulted in air continuing to leak from the lung after it had been reinflated with vacuum. In reading this, one could be left with the impression that the entire lung is closed off, when in fact what happens is the bleb is isolated from the rest of the lung tissue with staples. Radiopathy (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for pointing this out. How about in order to close the rupture? Or repair the rupture? Please do be bold, I'm sure the wording you choose will be fine. But let me know if you'd like me to help or do it myself. delldot ∇. 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a summary of apical bleb resection here. I'm not sure about citing it myself or if citation is even necessary, so I'll say, "Be bold" to you, and we can carry on the discussion if need be. Radiopathy (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Pnueumothorax

I had a pneumothorax, and was told it was because I was "Slim". Doctors had no answers. After 4 years of personal research I found it was caused by something very basic and obvious and simple. Dehydration. I never drank water, only tea coffee or alcohol. I began to notice I got a hole in the lung within a day of eating highly salty foods. Salt is a dehydrator. Salty pies from places like Gregg's have the highest salt content for example.

I regularly drink a lot of water, have cut back on salty foods and dont drink spirits anymore. I have not had a hole in the lung for years now and my face skin is no longer dry. Dry skin is a danger sign for a pneumothorax. My conclusion is to diagnose yourself and dont rely on doctors who quite frankly dont have any answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.134.156 (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting, but I'm reverting because there is no accepted scientific proof at this time to verify your observation. I've had a pneumo myself, and it would be very reassuring to know that preventing a recurrence is that simple. Radiopathy (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am surprised you have removed my edit of Dehydration as a probable cause. Under Etiology, the heading is "probable cause" and then lists chronic problems like infections and cancer. Where is the "probable cause" for fit healthy youngish people like me who get holes in the lung. Dehydration was 100% the cause of my pneumothoraxs and it wont harm anyone to list it as a "probable cause" here, which after all is likely the first port of call for anyone who gets one. I would only like to help others avoid going through what I went through, completely unnecessarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.43.39.218 (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now your entry is based on anecdotal evidence and is therefore against the No original research policy and cannot be included. Radiopathy (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I suffered a collapsed lung during a serious auto accidnet...two years afterward, I am still experiencing breathing difficulties when exhurting myself? I sthis normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.8.100 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

The trouble with pneumothorax is that it may occur in completely unrelated settings and that therefore there are various perspectives. This is even borne out by the various therapeutic approaches - in the UK respiratory physicians are very happy using Seldinger-type intercostal drains, while cardiothoracic surgeons still commonly advise that a larger drain may be effective in treating a pneumothorax where Seldinger drainage has failed. PMID 18708734 is a very nice free review that seems to cover a lot of perspectives at once. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

doi:10.1542/10.1542/pir.29-2-69 review in children. JFW | T@lk 11:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

PMID 17253510 - Cochrane review supporting the use of aspiration in the primary treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Support the practice already endorsed by the BTS 2003 guidelines. JFW | T@lk 12:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

PMID 17621614 - another review (2007, Postgrad Med J). JFW | T@lk 12:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

PMID 18164300 - review focusing on the pneumothorax in trauma and how to deal with it. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Spontaneous pneumothorax - review in ERJ, usually a very good source. JFW | T@lk 12:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1493 - BMJ review with emphasis on the imaging of pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

PMID 11171742 - American guideline (ACCP). JFW | T@lk 16:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/j.prrv.2008.12.003 - treatment of PSP in children. JFW | T@lk 17:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is amazing how difficult it is to find a MEDRS for tension pneumothorax! JFW | T@lk 17:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

BTS have put out a pneumothorax guideline doi:10.1136/thx.2010.136986. Also found a review on tension PTX doi:10.1136/emj.2003.010421 JFW | T@lk 17:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

History

The history section will need attention: according to http://www.jstor.org/pss/3406350 the creation of artificial pneumothoraces was pioneered by the Italian Carlo Forlanini and introduced in the USA by John B. Murphy. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible merger

JFW has suggested a possible merge of the info from "Tension pneumothorax" into "Pneumothorax". "Tension pneumothorax" could be regarded as a spinout from "Pneumothorax". However the extra content from "Tension pneumothorax" is not very much, and there is quite a lot of duplicated info. Therefore I support the proposed merger. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a good idea. This is just a subtype and until a section on it becomes too large it should be kept within the main article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree as well. If things develop to the point that we've got a large, well-written, non-redundant subsection on tension pneumo here, we could always spin it back out into a standalone article. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Have merged and am in the process of attempting to organizes it all. Much is duplication.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, tension pneumothorax should be merged with pneumothorax. Catamenial Pneumothorax should not be merged because it is a GYN disease from endometriosis with secondary pulmonary involvement. It should have its own category. Endometriosis travels to every organ ex. the brain (see Catamenial Epilepsy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glynis D. Wallace (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow your logic Glynis. By extension, we should have pneumothorax due to cancer because the cancer may be spread from somewhere else, and it might be (for the sake of the argument) from the testicle or the kidney! JFW | T@lk 16:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating

Having finished work on hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, I have now set my sights on improving this article. I have already listed a few useful references above, which I will be using when updating this. Currently most of the references are WP:MEDRS-incompatible, so I might slash content that is not also sourceable to my main references and becomes unverifiable. I might require some help when working on trauma-related content as I have very limited clinical experience in trauma, and might mess things up.

1.  Done Signs and symptoms

   Need to eliminate the bulletted list, replacing it with prose. Need to distinguish between spontaneous and traumatic pneumothorax, in the context of which the mechanism can be discussed (blast injury, direct chest trauma)

2.  Done Cause

   Need again to separate between traumatic and spontaneous, with a distinction between primary and secondary pneumothorax, as the management differs considerably based on this distinction alone

3.  Done Mechanism

   Mainly requires expansion and better sources

4.  Done Diagnosis

   Importance of when not to do a chest X-ray, with short section on the use of CT and US. We probably need to discuss the use of X-ray measurements to distinguish between small and large pneumothoraces (as done by the BTS guideline)

5.  Done Management

   Needs to separated between acute management and relapse prevention.

6.  Done Prevention

   New section that focuses on measures to prevent recurrence. Needs to discuss the numerous options for pleurodesis (Tschopp expends a lot of ink on this)

7.  Done Epidemiology

   New section, mostly from Tschopp and BTS

8.  Done History

   Need historical reference for Itard, more on other treatments and when they were introduced.

9.  Done Image gallery

   These images should be incorporated into the article text.

Anyone willing to help is more than welcome. JFW | T@lk 12:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Kjaergaard

Many sources quote Hans Kjaergaard's 1932 report. Unfortunately I can't seem to get the website to give me the DOI for the article, but here is a DOI for the journal! doi:10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2796 JFW | T@lk 20:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The paper itself runs from pages 1 through 93 of the supplement, as mentioned in this Arch Int Med review. The Acta Med Scand website gives doi:10.1111/j.0954-6820.1932.tb05982.x, but it doesn't work. Here's a direct link. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 06:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If the DOI isn't working we shouldn't try to link to it. I will report it to CrossRef at some point. JFW | T@lk 07:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pneumothorax/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a GA article with a few adjustments

Will list them below:

1. The ACCP ref is not working?
2. A little unsure about this text "Even in cases of tension pneumothorax an X-ray is sometimes required if there is doubt about the location of the pneumothorax (which is possible)" If one truly has a tension the person should have needles placed immediately.
3. I am not sure about comments within the text that recommend "see below"
4. I have never pursued preventative measures. Wondering if we should describe who this is appropriate for?
5. I assume here you mean that if one wishes to continue diving they would need a pleurectomy? "An exception is diving, which requires pleurectomy (see below) as well as investigations to confirm normal lung function before it can be regarded as safe." I have always seen a previous pneumo as a contraindication. But I see the ref says "Diving should be permanently avoided unless the patient has undergone bilateral surgical pleurectomy and has normal lung function and chest CT scan postoperatively. (C)"
6. Never heard of a "Asherman chest seal". We should probably describe it as Wikipedia does not have a page. Google has a bunch of images [2]
7. The "safe triangle" is mentioned but not described.
8. My favorite device call a pigtail catheters is not mentioned? [3]
9. Trying to figure out how to improve the causes section. Trauma is not mentioned. Neither is iatrogenic. I remember reading somewhere that the most common cause of a pneumothorax is positive pressure ventilation and it usually occurs on the rights side as if the ET tube goes down to fair into the primary bronchus you can end up ventilation one lung when you thing you are ventilation two. It think this was from the ATLS book. Will look when I get home.
10. Should we comment a little on prognosis? We have this ref saying one should not fly for two week after resolution. PMID: 10597066
11. Uptodate says "A primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) is a pneumothorax that occurs without a precipitating event in a person who does not have known lung disease. In actuality, most individuals with PSP have unrecognized lung disease, with the pneumothorax resulting from rupture of a subpleural bleb". I guess this is why some of the cause redirects to the mechanism section.
12. Rosen's says suction is fine as long as the pneumothorax has been present for 3 days or less. Seem like there is slight disagreement between the two sides of the pond? :-) These sort of details however would only be needed once it gets to FA.
13. A second ref Rosen's says that Marfan's syndrome is a cause of PSP I guess implying that there is an absence of known lung disease.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominated. I will do some more tidying up today. JFW | T@lk 07:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To respond to comments:

1.  Done ACCP reference: I got the name of the reference wrong. It was ye olde ACCP consensus guideline.
2. The source (Leigh-Smith) is very clear that a chest X-ray is not verboten in tension unless the patient is truly in extremis

   Yes I guess it depends on how exactly one defines tension. Some restrict it to extremis. Have seen texts say that one should never see a tension pneumo on X ray as it should have already been decompressed.

3. I use "see below" where there is a concept that will be defined later on in the article in the right context rather than clarifying it on the spot. It has not previously been a problem, but I agree that I've had to resort to this a few times to keep the article flowing.
4. The sources are quite vague about who should actually be offered prevantative measures. That's why I phrased it in that way - a diver would much prefer intervention, while a young non-smoker with PSP might defer unless a further episode occurs.
5.  Done I'll rephrase the statement about diving.
6.  Done I hadn't heard of Asherman seals until I saw it in the source. I'll expand on it.
7.  Done Safe triangle now clarified
8. The sources don't readily describe the various devices available. All I felt was necessary was to distinguish between small and large caliber tubes, and even then this is difficult to source.
9. These are all mentioned in the text (mostly sourced to Noppen and Leigh-Smith), but I didn't make a separate section in the "causes" section. Will do that later on today.
10. I didn't want to give specific time frames for flying because of the controversy. As UpToDate says, the actual evidence on which these recommendations are based is flimsier than flimsy.
11. All recent reviews (Noppen, Tschopp, BTS) cast doubt on the role of blebs. PSP causes no other symptoms of lung disease either. I have therefore discussed this in the context of "mechanism".
12. I left suction vague because various sources are indeed in disagreement (ACCP vs BTS) in the absence of real evidence.
13. I don't think you can answer that question. Everyone always screams "Marfan's!" whenever a tall chap comes in with a pneumothorax, and everyone always makes an effort to point at the slightly high-arched palate, the possible arachnodactyly and the increased arm span. In reality, I can't remember any one them where they were formally evaluated for Marfan's with genetics and echocardiography. Have you got evidence that pneumothorax can be the the first presentation of otherwise clinically silent Marfan's?

Let me know what else needs to be fixed. I will be back online tomorrow night BST. JFW | T@lk 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Should the section title "Prevention" be retitled "Prevention of recurrence" or "Secondary prevention" for clarity?Yobol (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the title consistent with WP:MEDMOS. The text is self-explanatory. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

We had this same discussion on the gout page during GA. I have no problem with primary and secondary prevention being discussed under prevention. If primary prevent it should go before treatment, if secondary prevention after treatment section IMO.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RexxS

I read through the article and was just about to offer to review it, but James beat me to it! I've a few suggestions for improvement that you may wish to consider anyway:

1. There are a couple of acronyms ("VATS" and "CT scan") that don't seem to be defined anywhere near where they are used. I'd recommend spelling them out on first use (even if "CT scan" is probably common enough to be recognised by many).
2. I see that you have made a classification in the Signs and symptoms section – was this a deliberate choice not to include a Classification section?
3. All medical articles contain jargon, and you've gone a long way to explain many terms either parenthetically or by wikilink, but there may be a few that need a little more explanation ("in emphysema and clusters of endometrial cells in catamenial pneumothorax" struck me in the Mechanism section).
4. As a scuba diver, the dangers of pneumothorax are strongly emphasised in the training; is "breath-holding during ascent" a cause that is worth mentioning? If so, I'll dig out some refs if you need them.

Hope this is helpful --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Some quick responses (will catch up with any corrections tonight):

1.  Done Will sort out the acronym situation
2. Giving a classification would cause a lot of duplication. There is already a lot of duplication between "signs & symptoms" and "causes".
3.  Done Have simply removed the confusing jargon
4. This was not mentioned in any of my sources, but let me know if you have a reliable source for this advice. As with flying, much of this is the stuff of anecdote.

Cheers, JFW | T@lk 06:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Diving-related PTX is a rare occurrence, but is well-documented. The "bible" of diving medicine, Bennett & Elliott, discusses it the context of pulmonary barotrauma:

• Brubakk, Alf O; Neuman, Tom S, eds. (2003). Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving, 5th Rev ed. United States: Saunders. pp. 561–563. ISBN 0702025712.

The danger of PTX for divers is present even on very shallow dives:

• Air embolism with bilateral pneumothorax after a five-meter dive

and it's interesting that treatment consisted of recompression to 3 bar on 100% O2 while the PTX was being drained. The discussion section there gives some insight to the complications likely to arise in the diving setting. Pulmonary overinflation syndrome is a group of related conditions including PTX, since in diving, the insult to the lungs caused by air expansion is almost certain to produce additional conditions (AGE probably being the most serious):

• Pulmonary overinflation syndrome in an underwater logger

There are quite a few other sources. Anyway, you may feel that the diving-related area is too specialised to include here; I'll leave that to your judgement. I'll ping Gene Hobbs to ask for the best sources if you do want to include something. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Gene has replied with some interesting information, although you'll have to estimate how much you want to include here, see User talk:Gene Hobbs#Pneumothorax --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you make an edit on diving practices causing pneumothorax? I think Bennett & Elliott is the only one of the above that qualifies as a WP:MEDRS. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unless anyone has further comments I see nothing here that would limit this articles promotion to GA.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I know I've promised to add a few words about pneumothorax and diving, but I've just not found a good stretch of time when I can read through the sources Gene has pointed me to, and I have to do that before I can be confident of what I write. In any case, I really think that's sort of a 'niche' issue, and I certainly don't think there's any bar to GA status for the article. I do promise I'll add a bit more about diving-related pneumothorax before it gets to FA :) --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Passed

On the above note:

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recurrence risk in smokers

The recurrence risk in smokers is not 120 times as much as in non-smokers. The number comes from doi:10.1378/chest.92.6.1009 which says "The life span risk of contracting SP among lifelong heavily smoking men is roughly estimated to be 12 percent but only 1/1,000 among never smokers." --WS (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I had clearly mixed up first instance and recurrence here. I also didn't know that using DOI as a prefix to a Wikilink would do the same as {{DOI}}! Learn new stuff every day. Does pmid:3443159 also work? JFW | T@lk 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas, it does not. JFW | T@lk 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

But here is another one you might not know yet: {{Cite journal | issue = 5 | pages = 362–364 | year = 1987 | pmid = 3443159 | volume = 71 | journal = European journal of respiratory diseases | last2 = Wiman | last1 = Bense | title = Time relation between sale of cigarettes and the incidence of spontaneous pneumothorax | first1 = L. | first2 = L.}} will automatically turn into: Bense, L.; Wiman, L. (1987). "Time relation between sale of cigarettes and the incidence of spontaneous pneumothorax". European journal of respiratory diseases. 71 (5): 362–364. PMID 3443159. --WS (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I did revert to the primary source citation as only the risk for lifelong heavy smoking men is quoted in the BTS reference, not the more useful overall risk in smoking men and women. --WS (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, no problem. It would be nice if James added the GA bit, unless there are other issues of course. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Air in the pleural space

I've amended "air in the pleural space does not conduct sound" to "air in the pleural space dampens sound", as that is probably nearer the truth – sound travels with much less dispersion through rigid structures like bone. Noppen says "In larger pneumothoraces, breath sounds and tactile fremitus are typically decreased or absent", which backs up the finding, if not the explanation. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Height and weight

One always hears that being tall and skinny increases ones risk however I am having trouble finding a proper review that comments on this. Uptodate mentions height and weight as a risk factor for recurrence but that is all I could find. Should be addressed though. This ref [4] states the association a number of time like it is fact: "These young men typically fit a profile of being both tall and thin, and most are quite healthy."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been known since the Mayo Clinic lot studied it on a population level (PMID 517861). It is very widely quoted. JFW | T@lk 22:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have again removed the claim that tall thin males are at greater risk of recurrence. This is a single study (even though Light is one of the authors) which is not quoted in any of the reviews that support this article. The fact that it is mentioned in UpToDate is - in my mind - insufficient, as I find the UpToDate articles very non-selective in their citations. I think we need stronger sources before letting this one in. JFW | T@lk 23:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My issue is that this is repeated in so many places that we should mention it in some fashion. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The risk for first pneumothorax in tall males is widely repeated. I have not seen any mention of recurrence in the same group. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We do mention height in two different places. Wondering if it should be addressed under causes with regarding to its status as a risk factor?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A risk factor is not a cause. JFW | T@lk 19:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Diagnosis Method

I had a pneumothorax about a year ago.. After waking up with back pain akin to that of a pulled muscle i went to my GP.. He was almost immediately able to diagnose it by listening for the dampened sound made when he tapped my chest through his stethascope.

He called it a 'barrel test' and mentioned it was related to some old wine maker's tests used to test the fullness of the wine barrels.. I couldnt find any reference to it as i scanned the article, nor could i find any decent references using google. But i thought it might be worth mentioning as it was both impressive and (i thought) a nice nugget of information.

I hope i havent messed anything up by adding this here, if i manage to find any solid references via google ill attempt to include them. - Tony Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.250.55 (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are often decreased breath sounds and vocal resonance on auscultation with a stethoscope, and hyperresonant percussion notes on percussion. This is mentioned in the article (under "physical examination"). JFW | T@lk 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lancet case report

This week's Lancet has a case report on recurrent and familial pneumothorax. Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome is the cause. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60072-X. Good thing we are covering this! JFW | T@lk 12:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Usage of Collapsed lung to describe a pneumothorax

The first two paragraphs of the discussion below (i.e. on or before 18:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC) began on the talk page of User:Jfdwolff

Just wanted to follow up on your edit. I know the difference between the two conditions and the fact they may be caused by different things, but surely the most common "layman" definition as used by most people on a non-technical basis is that a pneumothorax is always a collapsed lung even if a collapsed lung might include other things. A collaped lung might not be caused by a pneumothorax but even the infobox at the top of the article uses the teminology "the collapsed lung" to decribe what happens during it.

Maybe it's a terminology issue. Would somthing like, "whilst there are many conditions which can lead to a lung failing to inflate, the the phrase collapsed lung is most often used to refer to the organ's inability to inflate during a pneumothorax."? BigHairRef | Talk 18:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You might have noticed that collapsed lung and lung collapse both direct to a disambiguation page. This page correctly differentiates between the different concepts referred to collaquially as "collapsed lung". It would be plainly incorrect to suggest, on the pneumothorax page, that the term "collapsed lung" is synonymous with the more precise medical term. JFW | T@lk 18:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be incorrect to say that. In my view though, stating that this article is most commonly what is referred to when a person, quite possibly even those who are medically trained, talks about a "collapsed lung" whilst clarifying that a number of conditions are also called the same thing does not do that.

I think this is even more true when the article itself uses the phrase "collapsed lung" to describe one of the symptoms of pneumothorax. It is not in keeping with an article, which should discuss the manner beyond the simple medical description of the condition, simply to shut one's eyes to what most people call it and not provide any further discussion. The mechanism section even describes the condition, when discussing reabsorption rate of gas or fluid, as being a "completely collapsed lung".

Surely it makes more sense to set out the differences in the lead, rather than adopting a dogmatic approach, especially as otherwise, someone coming to the article without coming via the disambiguation page would see the condition described as a "collapsed lung" three times within the article and presumably believe (in the absence of medical knowledge) that a pneumothorax and a collapsed lung are the same thing?

It seems better to set out that pneumothorax is a collapsed lung but a collapsed lung is not necessarily a pnemothorax. The article doesn't currently do this and relies on the fact that the disambiguation was seen first.BigHairRef | Talk 00:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to write anywhere that "the lung collapses in pneumothorax but there are other conditions called collapsed lung". We'll wait for others to offer their opinion and see if we can form consensus on this. JFW | T@lk 06:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough but at the moment it says exactly what you don't want it to. It says that a lung collapses in a pneumothorax but doesn't say that there are other causes. BigHairRef | Talk 22:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't correct to say that a pneumothorax is a collapsed lung, period. Pneumothorax is the abnormal accumulation of fluid in the chest cavity. A collapsed lung is a consequence of a significant pneumothorax, but the two are not synonyms, whether in an "all x are y but not all y are necessarily x" pattern or otherwise. TaintedMustard (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pre-FAC scan

A quick look to see whether any recent secondary sources have become available:

• doi:10.1111/j.1440-1843.2011.01968.x reiterates the controversy as to whether PSP is caused by blebs or by pleural porosity. There is no definite answer. It offers no real new insights apart from recommending HRCT instead of conventional CT in assessing risk of recurrence but on fairly thin observational evidence.
• doi:10.1378/chest.10-2946 meta-analyses the use of ultrasound compared to plain radiography in the diagnosis of pneumothorax. I can't get hold of the fulltext to see whether this study distinguished between primary and secondary, spontaneous or traumatic/iatrogenic pneumothorax. It might be useful in the "diagnosis" section. I've decided to use doi:10.1007/s00134-010-2079-y instead.
• doi:10.1183/​09059180.00005310 is pretty short and doesn't appear to add anything to what we're already saying.
• doi:10.1016/j.suc.2010.06.008 reviews the condition from a surgical perspective. It contains essentially the same information as currently provided. Some factoids may be worth citing, e.g. that 5% of people with a chest tube have a persistent air leak. It also cites a 1974 description of peculiar ECG changes that we probably do not need to cite...

Of course any other sources, particularly book-based, are welcomed. JFW | T@lk 10:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reorganisation by Snowmanradio

Today Snowmanradio (talk · contribs) made a number of edits to the article. At some point, the structure of the sections was completely altered, mainly to create a section that was probably intended to discuss the anatomical concepts involved.

With apologies to Snowmanradio, I have temporarily undone all edits until we can come to a consensus about this. For one thing, the new version did not follow the section structure and headings recommended by WP:MEDMOS.

I think major changes to an article of this kind, especially when on FAC, and especially when one editor is trying to follow up recommendations from FAC, should be discussed before being applied. I realise that a number of other edits were also undone as part of the revert. For this too I apologise. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that the article has been reverted back to a version that is not entirely according to MEDMOS. My re-organisation yesterday may have been too much, and I can see some reasons why the reorganisation was reverted; however, I think some attempt should have been made to restore copy-editing and a new image that I added to the page. I have listed problems with article organisation in the FAC discussion. I trust that the editors of the article will be able to reorganise the page according to MEDMOS.Snowman (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If I have time I will review your other edits and salvage whatever is suitable. However, it was not possible to undo your reorganisation due to intercurrent changes, and I could not continue working on a version that was so radically different from what I submitted for FAC. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead image suggestion

Scheme for pneumothorax.

An explanatory image like the one here on the right would be nice to have as the main image in the lead, it shows the concepts of a pneumothorax pretty well and definitely better than a thorax x-ray. The text is in Czech however, it would be nice if anybody can make an English version or one without text. --WS (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It illustrates traumatic pneumothorax due to chest wall penetration. I agree a translated version would be suitable, but perhaps closer to the section that discusses traumatic causes. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not translated the Polish. I interpreted the blue needle to be an aspiration needle. I think that this is a general diagram. I did not see anythink else that could be interpreted as trauma. I think it could be modified for an illustration in the or infobox, and it may be better for non-medical readers. I think that the liver and more of the ribs (some ribs missing on one side) should be drawn in better. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The arrows seem to indicate that the lung is deflating due to the chest wall puncture. JFW | T@lk 10:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Scuba diving

This may be the wrong time to be offering this, but I saw the suggestion at FAC that "In special populations" might be included. The following is a draft of a section dealing with pneumothorax in scuba divers. Please feel free to use it, modify it, or put it on the shelf for some future time. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Divers who breathe from sources underwater are supplied with breathing gas at ambient pressure, which results in their lungs containing gas at higher than atmospheric pressure. The ambient pressure underwater increases by 1 bar (100 kPa) for every 10 metres (33 ft) of depth. Since a pressure differential of as little as 0.1 bars (10 kPa) has been observed to rupture the lung, divers breathing compressed air may suffer pulmonary barotrauma from ascending just 1 metre (3 ft) while breath-holding with full lungs.

The incidence of pneumothorax among divers is low, observed in only 5–10% of cases of arterial gas embolism (AGE), which itself has a reported incidence among divers of considerably less than 1,000 cases per year, according to statistics collected by Divers Alert Network. The signs and symptoms of pneumothorax in divers are similar to those in other groups, the most common being chest pain and shortness of breath. One particular complication is that the treatment for AGE is hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in a recompression chamber. During HBOT, any undiagnosed, small, pneumothorax carries a risk of developing into a tension pneumothorax as the external pressure is reduced at the end of treatment, with potentially fatal consequences unless the condition is recognised.

Thanks for writing that. Where do you think it should be inserted? It is also not entirely clear how arterial gas embolism leads to pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 10:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suspect it belongs in "Special populations", as it only applies to those who are breathing compressed gases. I'm sorry I wasn't able to make the point clearer, but Bennett and Elliott only indicate possible mechanisms. AGE and pneumothorax are comorbidities (is that the right word?) of an expansion injury to the lung, rather than one causally related to the other. It's probably clearer for you if I quote the relevant sentences (with apologies for copyvio):

• "It is not clear the exact pathway that air follows to produce this lesion. Clearly air can dissect to the visceral pleura and either at the site of weakness, a bleb, or an adhesion to the chest wall rupture, causing a clinical PTX. It is also possible, however, that air dissecting along perivascular sheaths can dissect to the root of the lung and then rupture the parietal pleura causing a PTX. A diving related PTX needs to be recognised early because if it occurs in association with an AGE, recompression treatment could theoretically cause a simple communicating PTX to be converted into a tension PTX during the ascent phase of treatment." - Bennett & Elliott, page 561.

I'd be more than happy if you can use that to clarify my efforts. I must admit I was trying to be as concise a possible, because the low incidence of diving related PTX suggested to me that more would be WP:UNDUE. I'll also drop User:Gene Hobbs a line and ask if he can improve it. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I wonder if we shouldn't list the mechanism of PTX in divers in "Mechanism", but then there is a risk that the whole thing will get fragmented. JFW | T@lk 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would actually argue for consideration of splitting the barotrauma up a little with a few additional points (Maybe one sentence each):

Under causes - trauma, List exposure to changes in atmospheric pressure such as those seen in scuba diving, submarine escape, uncontrolled decompression (altitude) and undiagnosed with HBO tx.

Epidemiology, add a shorter version of the information RexxS listed above as a summary of risk to divers or all of it under a subheading.

History, Mention spontaneous PTX as contraindication to scuba and debate around that for fitness to dive as well as SET operational changes made due to risk of pulmonary barotrauma (including PTX).

Maybe use a reference or two that have more public access. ;)

Just my 2c... Looks GREAT! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gene. Do you have a source (per WP:MEDRS) that discusses atmospheric pressure shifts in extenso? That might be helpful when we think about adding the above causes.

The BTS guideline has some content on the importance of securing the pleura in people with previous PTX prior to diving.

The history content would again need a source. JFW | T@lk 01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Barotrauma refs:

• Diving - Moon, RE; Stolp, BW title=Diving and the lung. (1997). South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society (SPUMS) Journal. 27 (4) http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/6092. Retrieved 2012-01-08. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing pipe in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Spontaneous PTX as contraindication to diving - Taylor, DMcD; O’Toole, KS; Ryan, CM (2002). "Experienced, recreational scuba divers in Australia continue to dive despite medical contra-indications". South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society (SPUMS) Journal. 32 (4). Retrieved 2012-01-08.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• AND Vorosmarti J, Linaweaver PG (eds). (1987). "Fitness to Dive. 34th Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop. UHMS Publication Number 70(WS-WD)5-1-87". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society. Retrieved 2012-01-08. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Not absolute contraindication - Francis, TJR (2001). "Pulmonary fitness to dive". South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society (SPUMS) Journal. 31 (4). Retrieved 2012-01-08.

• Submarine escape - Walker, Robyn (2002). "Lung assessment for submarine escape training". South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal (32). Retrieved 2012-01-08. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |number= and |issue= specified (help)
• Uncontrolled decompression - Bason R, Yacavone DW (1992). "Loss of cabin pressurization in U.S. Naval aircraft: 1969-90". Aviat Space Environ Med. 63 (5): 341–5. PMID 1599378. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

These may be a good start, I can pull more tomorrow if needed. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Gene, thanks for identifying two free references.[5] Unfortunately both have the format of case discussions, which are less suitable as sources for medical articles (see WP:MEDRS). The Vorosmarti source would be good, but is now 24 years old; is there no more recent consensus guidance on the subject? JFW | T@lk 22:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, just giving you options. <g> Jim's article is a good one and it is the last workshop on the topic by any of the three major societies worldwide. The only real change to those guidelines was one on diabetes anyway. Asthma may see some changes in the next few years but pressure and volume still act the same so nothing new on this topic anytime soon...

I just noticed you have not been using first names when they are available. I am a more info in the reference is better guy but please revert that one as well if it does not meet your needs.

I do think that should be moved down to the traumatic section. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look at moving the content to the "traumatic" section. With regards to first names, I try to keep the reference formatting consistent. The journal articles use only initials. I might have a further look at the Vorosmarti source, seeing that it pretty much seems to be the final word in this area. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Image

File:Chest Drainage Device.PNG

Drawing of a man with a chest tube inserted into the left thoracic cavity. He is carrying an underwater seal, which prevents air from refilling the chest

Axl (talk · contribs) (on the FAC page) has raised a concern that the drain site is too far anteriorly, and that the omental tag is placed in such a way as to allow too little slack on the drain. JFW | T@lk 11:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Pediatric incidence

"as for peak incidence in ages 16-24 that is an age that most doctors would regard as "adult""

In regard to incidence, specifically since the context was in pediatric incidence, 16-24 would not be regarded as "adult incidence" without qualifying language. At least, from how I intended the addition to the article | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to be clearer here. Why would I want to regard anyone over 18 as a child? JFW | T@lk 01:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, out of context it doesn't make sense. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 02:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Acupuncture source

Waylah (talk · contribs) has now twice added a mention of pneumothorax secondary to acupuncture. This is based on doi:10.3233/JRS-2010-0503, a paper by Edzard Ernst and colleagues that collates complications of acupuncture. I don't think it should be cited here. None of the other sources even allude to it, while clearly mentioning other forms of iatrogenic pneumothorax. I suspect that while it is a recognised complication, it is sufficiently rare not to be suitable for mention here per WP:WEIGHT; the list of causes is not exhaustive. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

While I can see your point, I'd always urge caution about rejecting a secondary source, just because the condition it describes is rare. This may be one of the issues where an encyclopedia diverges from a general medical textbook, as WP:WEIGHT specifically asks us to "consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public", which I would take in this case to imply that we consider the prevalence of 'pneumothorax secondary to acupuncture' in sources, rather than its incidence as a condition. Ernst is a well-published (if sometimes controversial) author, and if he is able to collate multiple reports to create a review, then it might be that there are sufficient sources for the condition to be significant (in the WEIGHT sense).

Anyway, you're the expert and you know the literature, so I'm always going to defer to your judgement on the prevalence of sources; but I did want you to give a little more thought to this issue as I wouldn't want the article be be accused of being less than comprehensive, if the sources are really there to justify mention of this condition. --RexxS (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a déjà vu, after vertebral artery dissection went through exactly the same process involving a source by Ernst. I am in no doubt that the source is relevant on acupuncture, but on this article it would cause problems with WP:WEIGHT. JFW | T@lk 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I also found this paper, again by Ernst. They report 201 cases of pneumothorax as an adverse event related to acupuncture, and four deaths, although it is impossible to know if the acupuncture was actually causal. In any case, sources about pneumothorax do not describe acupuncture as a cause. Therefore this material should not be in "Pneumothorax". It would be appropriate for "Acupuncture". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Ernst is a professor of CAM, if I recall correctly, and he seems to focus on debunking inappropriate medical claims, so it's quite probable that topics such as acupuncture and chiropractic will have come under his scrutiny, producing a disproportionate degree of attention. At least we can now demonstrate to Waylah that his efforts have been taken seriously, even if consensus is that this article is not the place for them. --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Dr.saptarshi

Dr.saptarshi (talk · contribs) made a number of changes to the article. In the intro, there was a verbose addition on tension pneumothorax with a reference that relied heavily on the search function of Google Books. The additions to "mechanism", again on tension pneumothorax, were also quite long, supported by references not in keeping with WP:MEDRS, and creating attribution problems (e.g. text seemingly cited to Leigh-Smith but not actually in the source).

I am very happy discussing the changes here, but at the moment I don't think they were enhancing the article. JFW | T@lk 19:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JFW. I had similar concerns about both verbosity and a few other concerns (probably similar to yours :). You might have noticed that I had already trimmed down the intro myself into something much smaller than an intermediate form - which of course was too verbose and I didnt keep it for more than 7 minutes. But I am glad you helped putting the article completely back. Else I was under major pressure to do a lot of cleaning/major revisions urgently myself . Sorry for the inconvenience so far. Now I am relieved that I can take my time without any further inconvenience to the readers or other editors- and can do my revisions off line/off the main article page.

I had a concern that current intro and mechanism both might give misleading info about tension pneumothorax. The below parts in the intro and mechanism might also need to be looked into, about its factual accuracy as a general statement, its appropriateness as a part of intro.. etc. My reading and edits was mainly to address(/bring your notice to) these. Hopefully my edits and references (and this discussion) will stay in the history log for future reference of others as well as myself.

1. The intro talks about "tension" as if it is all about volume. But it has also a lot to do with pressure (the definition and our understanding in relation to pressure has been evolving over time and Leigh smith definition infobox last bullet summarizes it nicely).
2. One way valve is a idea we all talk about first thing when we talk about TPT.. but will a lay man understand it in the same way as we do by mentioning it right in the intro? Plus is it necessary to have a one way valve? what about a Positive presure ventilation with a Bronchopulmonary fistula? More over is it sufficient to have a one way valve to have a tension pneumothorax? Dont people with Asthma/COPD have one way valve mechanism that cause the retention of the residual volume. If they have a ruptured bulla will they necessarily always have a Tension unless the parallelly escalating compensatory increase in respiraory effort actually add the positive part of the pressure? One of the primary references I mentioned in the mechanism section cited a one way valve that lead to bilateral spontaneous pneumothorax that stayed non-tension for quite sometime despite its one-way-ness.
3. The current section on mechanism again gives a misleading info as if respiratory arrest is the major problem but actually reduced cardiac output is the major problem which has been shown well enough in animal studies mentioned in the google book references I cited.
4. I started to mention the positive pressure ventilation type TPT but realized that intro was not the right place and so had already removed that part.

I am also happy to discuss here without disturbing the main page. After doing the edits I myself realized that my own idea about "tension" evolved so rapidly after sarting to think and read about it, that had I foreseen such huge shift, I would not have touched the article, and would have liked to discuss them here first. Sorry for my verbose language and poor English in this discussion I just woke up in the middle of a catch up sleep post call after tandem night duty and then a day duty. Didnt have enough time/alertness to articulate my thoughts sufficiently at this instance. But hope the wisdom of others combined with mine will benefit the article. Feel free to be candid if you disagree (since it is discussion page.. and I assure you I will not take them personally. ;)

Sincere regards-- Dr.saptarshi (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear which bits of information we need to include to enhance the article. I agree that discussing the pathophysiology of tension pneumothorax in the intro may be a bit excessive. I too am not clear that all cases of tension pneumothorax result from a one-way valve the way it happens in trauma.

Leigh-Smith does appear to discuss the fact that respiratory arrest is not the main "endgame" of tension pneumothorax. We need to verify this before committing it to the article. JFW | T@lk 21:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

1. At present, the definition of tension pneumothorax in the lead is different to the definition used in "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Tension pneumothorax". This needs to be fixed.

2. The "one-way valve" concept is used in specialist respiratory texts, such as Fishman's Pulmonary Diseases & Disorders and Light's Pleural Disorders. While it may be interesting to speculate on the nature of (tension) pneumothorax in asthma, COPD or bronchopleural fistula, in Wikipedia articles we must use reliable sources, ideally secondary sources.

3. You're referring to "Mechanism", paragraph 3. That's a fair point. The reduction in cardiac output should be mentioned. (Whether "reduced cardiac output is the major problem" is somewhat academic, and I think beyond the scope of Wikipedia's article.)

4. "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Tension pneumothorax" has a short paragraph about mechanical ventilation. I think that is enough for Wikipedia's article.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Axl, as far as I could read (correct me if I am wrong), the definition of Tension is done by "pressure" and neither by one way valve nor by volume expansion in the "specialist respiratory textbook" Fishman and most other textboks. For the convenience of others let me give some excerpts:

Fishman 4th Edition Chapter 87 (page 1531) Opening lines about tension pneumothorax says:

"A tension pneumothorax is present when the intrapleural PRESSURE is greater than atmospheric throughout expiration and often during inspiration as well. The term expiratory tension pneumothorax has been proposed to highlight the fact that in a SPONTANEOUSLY BREATHING person, pleural pressure must be negative in relation to atmospheric pressure during part of the respiratory cycle for air to enter the pleural space. The mechanism responsible for tension pneumothorax is the disruption of the visceral or parietal pleura in such a manner that a one-way valve develops.....As a tension pneumothorax progresses, the pleural pressure remains positive during a greater portion of the inspiratory cycle. If the patient is on MECHANICAL VENTILATION, the ALVEOLAR pressure remains POSITIVE throughout inspiration and expiration.

A tension pneumothorax can occur after any type of pneumothorax; it is independent of the etiology. It can sometimes occur after a spontaneous pneumothorax but is more common after a traumatic pneumothorax, with mechanical ventilation, or during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

....

A tension pneumothorax may develop because of improper connection of a one-way flutter valve to the chest tube. It can occur even if there is a chest tube in place, due to either mal-positioning of the tube or disconnection at the site of tube or the site of the pleural-vac container.

..

The decompensation of the cardiopulmonary status in patients with tension pneumothorax is usually attributed to diminished venous return and marked decrease in the cardiac output, which is THE most life-threatening. However, there is ALSO a significant decrease in the PaO2, which also needs to be addressed immediately as well.

Animal studies demonstrate that cardiac output is maintained by the tachycardia and the increase in negative intrathoracic pressure during inspiration. Deterioration has been shown to be related to severe hypoxemia, probably because of increased shunting and V-Q mismatch in the compressed lung. Preterminally, animals develop CO2 retention and respiratory acidosis. The importance of negative intrathoracic pressure swings in maintaining cardiac output was demonstrated by the precipitous fall in cardiac output when mechanical ventilation was initiated."

Rosen's emergency medicine, Chapter 75, Pleural Disease by Joshua M. Kosowsky, Says:

"With tension pneumothorax, signs of asphyxia and decreased cardiac output develop. Tachycardia (often >120 beats/min) and hypoxia are common. Hypotension is a late and ominous finding. Distention of the jugular veins is common but may be difficult to detect. Displacement of the trachea to the contralateral side is classically described but is an uncommon finding, usually occurring only in the immediately preterminal phase of the pneumothorax, if at all. Its absence should not be considered evidence that a tension phenomenon is not present."

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medidine introduction about TPT says:

"This condition usually occurs during mechanical ventilation or resuscitative efforts. The positive pleural pressure is lifethreatening both because ventilation is severely compromised and because the positive pressure is transmitted to the mediastinum, which results in decreased venous return to the heart and reduced cardiac output."

I could not so far find any of these textbooks mention the "respiratory arrest". If we prefer to use secondary sources like textbooks probably we might have to replace "respiratory arrest" and replace it with hypoxemia or asphyxia. But interestingly there is primary literature highlighting this. For example this paper Accidentally created tension pneumothorax in patient with primary spontaneous pneumothorax – confirmation of the experimental studies, putting into question the classical explanation says: "The widespread explanation of patophysiology of tension pneumothorax is that compression to the mediastinum by the progressively accumulating intrapleural air causes torsion at the atrio-caval junction, impaired filling of the right heart and circulatory arrest as potentially life-threatening complication. Some experimental studies on animals put into question such an explanation, suggesting that respiratory arrest due to hypoxia of the respiratory center, not a circulatory arrest, represents dominant life threatening feature."

Sincere regards --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am certainly not disputing the importance of pressure in the development of tension pneumothorax. Of course I agree that Fishman defines tension pneumothorax in terms of pressure. However the one-way valve is also an important concept. To repeat your quote of Fishman: "The mechanism responsible [in a spontaneously breathing person] for tension pneumothorax is the disruption of the visceral or parietal pleura in such a manner that a one-way valve develops." Indeed if there was no one-way valve, the intrapleural pressure would equilibrate with atmospheric during expiration, thus the pneumothorax would not be tension by definition.

Wikipedia's article currently states "Although multiple definitions exist, a tension pneumothorax is generally considered to be present when a pneumothorax leads to significant impairment of respiration or blood circulation." This is referenced to Leigh-Smith. Leigh-Smith's article has a section entitled "Tension Pneumothorax – Definition". Leigh-Smith mentions various definitions used in the literature. Ironically, Leigh-Smith fails to state their chosen definition, and then goes on to say "Definitions using intrapleural pressure (IPP) are more accurate than clinical definitions".

I do not believe that Leigh-Smith should be used as a reference to define tension pneumothorax. At best, it can be used to say that more than one definition is described in the literature.

Thank you for pointing out the paragraph in Fishman that describes the importance of reduced cardiac output. You are quite right to emphasize this. However Leigh-Smith's description of animal studies states: "Despite falling stroke volumes cardiac output was almost universally preserved throughout with one study noting a 19% increase in BP. In all these studies just two animals (both immature monkeys with mobile mediastinums) developed hypotension immediately before death from respiratory arrest, but cardiac output was still 70% normal at this stage.... There was minimal evidence of right sided venous obstruction with only bilateral TPTs causing a linear rise in central venous pressure (CVP). Only one of the three unilateral TPT studies found increased superior and inferior vena caval pressures and these occurred in the agonal stages of respiration."

Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Primary source about bullae

Dbann (talk · contribs) added the following content:

“ There is evidence to support this. For example, the presence of blebs or bullae in the lung have been associated with a 10-fold increased risk of spontaneous pneumothorax recurrence. ”

This is based on doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.073, which is a primary research study. Dbann reverted my removal of the study because "it summarises the previous research". This is a common argument for using primary research studies as sources for encyclopedia content. There is however a longstanding concern (discussed repeatedly on WT:MEDRS) that such summaries are often one-sided because of space or because the researchers wish to place their findings in a particular context. Of course any appropriate new secondary sources citing this study are suitable. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Both narrative reviews (which are currently cited) and original researcher articles doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.073 may suffer from this bias in the studies they do or not include. The only robust source would be a systematic review, which I have not found. Would this sentence not require a citation? "...blebs occur in 15% of healthy people". Dbann (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Narrative reviews are meant to be comprehensive (or at least declare when they are not comprehensive), while again most research papers are more selective out of necessity. I agree that systematic reviews are "the bees' knees" in this regard (on our hierarchy of needs) but often not available. I would not be surprised if the Casali paper was soon included in reviews.

You are correct that the "blebs in 15%" claim needs a specific citation, because it is does not appear in Tschopp's review (it's only in Noppen). Grundy gives a figure of 6% based on data acquired in a non-affected population. I have adjusted the content to reflect this. Hope you agree. JFW | T@lk 14:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me Dbann (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Iatrogenic pneumothorax

J Hosp Med review on management doi:10.1002/jhm.2053 JFW | T@lk 15:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis

I have reverted this edit. The source describes two case reports of people who used cannabis and developed emphysema (with bullae) and aspergillomas, with subsequent pneumothoraces. The reference is a primary source, and in any case concentrates more on the connection between cannabis and aspergillus. The presence of pneumothoraces is incidental. Perhaps more importantly, my main secondary sources do not describe cannabis use as a cause for pneumothorax, I am inviting the anonymous IP editor to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

More refs can be found including:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qGDD--GXcG8C&pg=PA61&dq=cannabis+spontaneous+pneumothorax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3RMdUtHlCsbmyQHEuoGACA&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=cannabis%20spontaneous%20pneumothorax&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ATDRt1HM9MwC&pg=PA166&dq=cannabis+spontaneous+pneumothorax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3RMdUtHlCsbmyQHEuoGACA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=cannabis%20spontaneous%20pneumothorax&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fwutfifAS-4C&pg=PT3748&dq=cannabis+spontaneous+pneumothorax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3RMdUtHlCsbmyQHEuoGACA&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=cannabis%20spontaneous%20pneumothorax&f=false 66.188.191.126 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Others: http://books.google.com/books?id=KDOeIldGWxQC&pg=PT203&dq=cannabis+pneumothorax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DRcdUtXrI8qCygGl8oG4CA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=cannabis%20pneumothorax&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sossht2t5XwC&pg=PA533&dq=marijuana+pneumothorax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gRcdUuXLLIbwyAHGl4DYCQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=marijuana%20pneumothorax&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=KuVJXCJldOQC&pg=PA720&dq=marijuana+pneumothorax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gRcdUuXLLIbwyAHGl4DYCQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=marijuana%20pneumothorax&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.191.126 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Source 1 is a book about addiction and drug abuse. It mentions pneumothorax only in passing.

Similarly, source 2 is a book about cannabinoids. It mentions pneumothorax is passing.

With source 3, you seem to be directing me towards a letter in a medical journal. This is not a suitable reference.

Source 4 is a toxicology handbook that mentions pneumothorax as a rare complication. This is another unsuitable source.

Source 5 is actually a reasonable source. It is a radiology textbook. It mentions marijuana in the text, although it does not include marijuana in its table of causes.

Source 6 is a manual of emergency pediatrics. Even with its focus on pediatrics, I question whether cannabis-induced pneumothorax is really more common than connective tissue disease peumothorax. In any case, it certainly isn't approaching a comprehensive list.

WP:MEDRS has guidance on the selection of sources. In particular, secondary sources should be used—reference 3 is an unsuitable source.

In my opinion, when listing causes of a particular disease, it is better to use a secondary source about the disease that includes a comprehensive list of the major causes. This helps to prevent inappropriate weighting of rare causes. The article is not intended to include an exhaustive list of every cause ever reported. This approach has already been used with this article, using this reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You may want to look at these sources also:

Source 7

Source 8

Source 9

Source 10

Source 11

Source 12

Thank you for taking the time explain your reasoning, but it seems clear that cannabis use has a better than good association with secondary and tertiary sources on the topic of Pneumothorax. 66.188.191.126 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Those references are reasonable suggestions. I am inviting WikiProject Medicine editors to comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It would not really be surprising that all types of smoking increases the risk. We could summarize it as "smoking (either tobacco or cannabis)"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Should I wish to update the article, the following sources might be useful (using "Pneumothorax"[MAJR] with "Review" on PubMed):

• doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202875 Thorax systematic review of ambulatory management
• doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.12.003 JTCS use of endobronchial valves for persistent air leaks
• doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.02.049 J Emerg Med alternative treatments
• doi: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2012.10.006 Thorac Surg Clinics types of chest tubes
• doi:10.1097/MCP.0b013e32835358ca Curr Opin Pulm Med use of blood patch for persistent air leaks
• doi:10.1007/s11748-012-0080-9 Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg meta-analysis of surgical approaches
• doi:10.1378/chest.11-1691 Chest pneumothorax in the critically ill patient
• doi:10.1378/chest.11-0131 Chest ultrasound characteristics
• doi:10.1159/000335993 Respiration Noppen again suggesting pleural porosity as the main cause of PSP

The ultimate aim of updating this article would be FA candicacy, again. JFW | T@lk 18:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly notable case of pnuemothorax?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-06-30/news/9606300409_1_kit-emergency-medicine-lung

This is a pretty interesting case of pneumothorax. Is this notable enough to include in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.145.90 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a case report in a newspaper. This sort of case crops up from time to time. As well as being non-notable, it does not meet WP:MEDRS. It should not be added to the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Secondary spontaneous

In behalf of Drs. Frank McCormack and Nishant Gupta at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, I have tried to add the following information twice. They believe this information is very critical to add as a spontaneous pneumothorax can be the first indication of a rare lung disease. We believe both physicians and patients would be helped as they search for the cause of their pneumothorax.

If you would like for Dr. Gupta to shorten or modify please let me know and I will work with him to do this. Again we believe this information is important to add to one of the pages on Wiki new rare ling disease patients may look.

LAM Pneumothorax Wiki write-up

One of the most common etiologies for a secondary spontaneous pneumothorax is the disease lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM). LAM is a rare, progressive, neoplastic disease characterized by infiltration of the lung parenchyma with smooth muscle cells ultimately leading to the formation of multiple lung cysts. LAM is seen almost exclusively in females, with the majority of females diagnosed in their reproductive years. LAM can be seen as a part of the neurocutaneous syndrome Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC-LAM) or can exist separately, in patients who do not have heritable mutations (Sporadic LAM). LAM, both sporadic as well as TSC-LAM, is caused by mutations in one the two tumor suppressor genes: TSC1 or TSC2 (1).

LAM is characterized by an increased risk of development of recurrent spontaneous pneumothoraces. In fact, pneumothorax is the presenting manifestation in greater than 50% of patients with LAM (2). The lifetime incidence of pneumothorax in patients with LAM varies from 39-81% (2). In the largest study analyzing the incidence and prevalence of pneumothoraces in LAM, the authors found an initial pneumothorax rate of 66% (260 out of 395 patients) (2). In addition, patients with LAM have a very high rate of having repeated episodes of pneumothoraces. In the study by Almoosa et al more than three-quarters of the patients (77%, 200 out of 260 patients) experienced a recurrent pneumothorax. On average a patient with LAM experiences more than three episodes of pneumothoraces in their lifetime (2).

Pleurodesis is a procedure commonly employed in an effort to reduce the chance of having a recurrent episode of pneumothorax (see section below on pleurodesis). In patients with LAM, conservative management (No pleurodesis) of the first episode of pneumothorax was associated with a 66% recurrence rate, while management with pleurodesis reduced the recurrence rate considerably, resulting in a 27-32% recurrence rate following pleurodesis (2). Based on this data, most experts recommend patients with LAM undergo pleurodesis after their first episode of pneumothorax (1, 2).

Another concern of patients, and their caregivers, in LAM is related to the impact of pleurodesis on the future chances of having a lung transplant, if needed. Prior pleural interventions, such as pleurodesis, can increase the risk of bleeding complications at the time of lung transplantation, and some centers consider bilateral pleurodesis to be a relative or absolute contraindication to lung transplantation (3). However, multiple studies have shown that while prior pleurodesis can produce a higher risk of bleeding during the transplant, it doesn't affect the mortality or other outcomes following lung transplant (2, 4-6). Based on these data, a history of pleurodesis is not considered a contraindication to lung transplantation in patients with LAM (7), and patients with LAM should be offered the option to undergo pleurodesis following their initial episode of pneumothorax.

The diagnosis of LAM is frequently delayed by 3–5 years from the onset of symptoms (7, 8). Performing a high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the chest, in women presenting with a pneumothorax can lead to earlier diagnosis of LAM thus facilitating timely interventions to prevent recurrent episodes of pneumothoraces. In fact, in a cost-effectiveness study, Hagaman et al (9) have shown that performing a HRCT chest in non-smoking women presenting with a pneumothorax in their reproductive years is cost-effective in diagnosing LAM.

Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHD) is another diffuse cystic lung disease that accounts for a significant proportion of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces. BHD is a rare, autosomal-dominant disorder resulting from mutations in the folliculin (FLCN) gene on chromosome 17, and is characterized by the development of hair follicle tumors, renal neoplasms, and pulmonary cysts (10). More than 80% of patients with BHD have lung cysts. These cystic air spaces predispose patients with BHD to develop recurrent pneumothoraces (10). The incidence of pneumothorax in patients with BHD is 32-fold higher than the general population, extending up to 50-fold higher after adjusting for age (11). Approximately 25% of the patients with BHD will develop a pneumothorax in their lifetime; however, there is a 75% chance of a recurrent event after the initial episode of pneumothorax (12). Based on the high recurrence rate following a sentinel event, pleurodesis should be considered following the first episode of a pneumothorax in patients with BHD (10, 13). Two recent studies have demonstrated that BHD can be the underlying etiology for a pneumothorax in 5-10% of the patients presenting to the emergency room with an apparent primary spontaneous pneumothorax (14, 15). Similar to LAM, a recent analysis shows that performing a HRCT to screen for BHD in patients presenting with a pneumothorax is cost-effective. Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis (PLCH) is a rare, cystic lung disease most commonly encountered in young to middle aged patients (1). Approximately 90% of adult PLCH are active or former smokers, or have a history of exposure to second-hand cigarette or marijuana smoke (1, 16). Pneumothorax occurs in approximately 15% of patients with PLCH (17). The recurrence rate of pneumothorax following a sentinel event is quite high in PLCH. In the study by Mendez et al. 58% of patients had a recurrent pneumothorax if managed with observation or chest tube alone. In contrast, performing a pleurodesis reduced the recurrence rate to zero (17). This forms the basis for the recommendation to consider pleurodesis following the initial episode of pneumothorax in patients with PLCH (1).

Catamenial pneumothorax (CP) is defined as a spontaneous pneumothorax that occurs within the window of 24 hours before and 72 hours after the onset of menstrual cycle (18). Previously considered a rare cause of spontaneous pneumothorax, CP is now increasingly been recognized as a common cause for recurrent pneumothoraces in females. In fact, CP is now considered to account for 20–25% of the cases of primary spontaneous pneumothorax in females of reproductive age (19, 20). CP develops as a result of thoracic endometriosis. While diaphragmatic endometriosis is seen in almost all patients with CP, endometrial implants on the visceral pleura have also been known to cause CP (20). The exact mechanism of thoracic implantation of the endometrial tissue remains unclear (18). It is important to recognize that not all patients with thoracic endometriosis related pneumothorax have the temporal association with onset of menses characteristic of CP. In a recent analysis, CP represented only approximately one-third of all thoracic endometriosis related pneumothoraces (20). CP is almost always seen on the right side, with very rare left sided or bilateral episodes reported in the literature (21). On average, patients experience 3-5 pneumothoraces before getting a definitive diagnosis and treatment for CP (22). Thus, it is important for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for thoracic endometriosis related pneumothorax/CP when evaluating females in their reproductive age group presenting with a spontaneous pneumothorax. Lack of a temporal relationship with menstrual cycle should not preclude the diagnosis of thoracic endometriosis related pneumothorax. Timely referral for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) can not only establish the definitive diagnosis but also help in reducing future recurrences. Medical treatment aimed to achieve hormonal blockade via oral contraceptive agents, progestins, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists may be needed in addition to pleurodesis in order to achieve complete pleural symphysis, as well as help in symptomatic management of cyclical chest pain (18).

References:

1. Gupta N, Vassallo R, Wikenheiser-Brokamp KA, McCormack FX. Diffuse Cystic Lung Disease. Part I. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(12):1354-66.
2. Almoosa KF, Ryu JH, Mendez J, Huggins JT, Young LR, Sullivan EJ, et al. Management of pneumothorax in lymphangioleiomyomatosis: effects on recurrence and lung transplantation complications. Chest. 2006;129(5):1274-81.
3. Young LR, Almoosa KF, Pollock-Barziv S, Coutinho M, McCormack FX, Sahn SA. Patient perspectives on management of pneumothorax in lymphangioleiomyomatosis. Chest. 2006;129(5):1267-73.
4. Pechet TT, Meyers BF, Guthrie TJ, Battafarano RJ, Trulock EP, Cooper JD, et al. Lung transplantation for lymphangioleiomyomatosis. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2004;23(3):301-8.
5. Reynaud-Gaubert M, Mornex JF, Mal H, Treilhaud M, Dromer C, Quetant S, et al. Lung transplantation for lymphangioleiomyomatosis: the French experience. Transplantation. 2008;86(4):515-20.
6. Benden C, Rea F, Behr J, Corris PA, Reynaud-Gaubert M, Stern M, et al. Lung transplantation for lymphangioleiomyomatosis: the European experience. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28(1):1-7.
7. Johnson SR, Cordier JF, Lazor R, Cottin V, Costabel U, Harari S, et al. European Respiratory Society guidelines for the diagnosis and management of lymphangioleiomyomatosis. Eur Respir J. 2010;35(1):14-26.
8. Ryu JH, Moss J, Beck GJ, Lee JC, Brown KK, Chapman JT, et al. The NHLBI lymphangioleiomyomatosis registry: characteristics of 230 patients at enrollment. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173(1):105-11.
9. Hagaman JT, Schauer DP, McCormack FX, Kinder BW. Screening for lymphangioleiomyomatosis by high-resolution computed tomography in young, nonsmoking women presenting with spontaneous pneumothorax is cost-effective. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;181(12):1376-82.
10. Gupta N, Vassallo R, Wikenheiser-Brokamp KA, McCormack FX. Diffuse Cystic Lung Disease. Part II. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192(1):17-29.
11. Zbar B, Alvord WG, Glenn G, Turner M, Pavlovich CP, Schmidt L, et al. Risk of renal and colonic neoplasms and spontaneous pneumothorax in the Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11(4):393-400.
12. Toro JR, Pautler SE, Stewart L, Glenn GM, Weinreich M, Toure O, et al. Lung cysts, spontaneous pneumothorax, and genetic associations in 89 families with Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175(10):1044-53.
13. Gupta N, Seyama K, McCormack FX. Pulmonary manifestations of Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. Fam Cancer. 2013;12(3):387-96.
14. Ren HZ, Zhu CC, Yang C, Chen SL, Xie J, Hou YY, et al. Mutation analysis of the FLCN gene in Chinese patients with sporadic and familial isolated primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Clin Genet. 2008;74(2):178-83.
15. Johannesma PC, Reinhard R, Kon Y, Sriram JD, Smit HJ, van Moorselaar RJ, et al. Prevalence of Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome in patients with apparently primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Eur Respir J. 2015;45(4):1191-4.
16. Vassallo R, Ryu JH, Colby TV, Hartman T, Limper AH. Pulmonary Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(26):1969-78.
17. Mendez JL, Nadrous HF, Vassallo R, Decker PA, Ryu JH. Pneumothorax in pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Chest. 2004;125(3):1028-32.
18. Alifano M. Catamenial pneumothorax. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2010;16(4):381-6.
19. Alifano M, Roth T, Broet SC, Schussler O, Magdeleinat P, Regnard JF. Catamenial pneumothorax: a prospective study. Chest. 2003;124(3):1004-8.
20. Fukuoka M, Kurihara M, Haga T, Ebana H, Kataoka H, Mizobuchi T, et al. Clinical characteristics of catamenial and non-catamenial thoracic endometriosis-related pneumothorax. Respirology. 2015;20(8):1272-6.
21. Alifano M, Jablonski C, Kadiri H, Falcoz P, Gompel A, Camilleri-Broet S, et al. Catamenial and noncatamenial, endometriosis-related or nonendometriosis-related pneumothorax referred for surgery. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176(10):1048-53.
22. Johnson MM. Catamenial pneumothorax and other thoracic manifestations of endometriosis. Clin Chest Med. 2004;25(2):311-9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimHasselfeld (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add PubMed IDs to sources that you propose using (I've done the first one for you) as a courtesy to other editors.

There is an article on Lymphangioleiomyomatosis as you are well aware. There could be a parent article on Diffuse Cystic Lung Disease or, more likely, on Cystic Lung Disease if sources were marshalled. In any of those articles it would be appropriate to discuss the etiology, classification, symptoms and management of LAM. It is wholly inappropriate to attempt to do so in this article on pneumothorax. Please review the section Pneumothorax #Cause and explain why the link to lymphangioleiomyomatosis is insufficient.

Similarly, we have an article on Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome and it doesn't need to be repeated here. Again, the section here on causes deals with Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome, and states "Generally, these conditions cause other signs and symptoms as well, and pneumothorax is not usually the primary finding." Why would we need to go into such great detail as you propose?

Our article on catamenial pneumothorax is relatively short, and expanding that with good MEDRS sources would be welcome, but I still can't see how it would improve this article to discuss the details of catamenial pneumothorax when it is clearly linked already from the same section that I referred you to. --RexxS (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Kim, thank you for bringing this matter to the talk page.

My main concern about this text is that it brings undue weight to specific diseases (lymphangioleiomyomatosis & Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome) into a generic article about pneumothorax. You will see that many of the references provided in the article are about pneumothorax, or even more generically about respiratory disease. On the other hand, many of the references that you provide are specific to LAM or BHD. Much of the information that you suggest would be more appropriate in those disease-specific articles.

Our article states that 70% of spontaneous secondary pneumothoraces are associated with COPD. What proportion are associated with LAM & BHD? My own ("original") anecdotal evidence: In 18 years of clinical medicine, I have never seen a case of BHD, and only a handful of cases of LAM. Yet I have seen thousands of cases of COPD.

It is commendable that you and your colleagues want to draw attention to these rare causes of secondary pneumothorax, but Wikipedia's article on pneumothorax is not the place to do so.

How would you feel about adding this information to the disease-specific articles? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I will share with Dr. Gupta and get back with you. Just FYI - for the text I tried to post I did have PMID IDs in the references and will definitely include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.246.127 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Trauma

The NICE guidelines for major trauma make recommendations about traumatic pneumothorax: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng39 JFW | T@lk 13:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources a little too old

This was placed under "Cause" however it is (1) no longer a current cause of pneumonia as is no longer done (2) the sources are old and unformated. (3) the topic was already covered in the history section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"In the 18th century, French physicians noticed that the prognosis of patients with tuberculosis improved if the patients developed spontaneous pneumothorax. In the late 19th century, the Italian physician Carlo Forlanini developed a technique to induce pneumothorax for therapeutic purposes, forcing the collapse of one lung in an attempt to close tuberculosis cavities. This inhibited progression of the disease, because it inhibited growth of the bacilli. Patients would survive on one lung while the damaged one healed, and the damaged lung would then be reinflated. Artificial pneumothorax was independently developed in the United States, but did not gain widespread popularity there until some years later. This procedure was an important part of treatment for tuberculosis until the introduction of the BCG vaccine and effective antibiotics in the 1950s. In this way, the treatment of tuberculosis laid the foundations for modern thoracic surgery."

Pneumothorax#History here is the section in which it is already discussed.

Which source supports the effectiveness of the practice? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Open/Closed/Sucking chest wound

I made the following addition regarding pneumos of the Open/Closed/Sucking chest wound varieties [6]. I tried to remain faithful to the source which describes sucking chest wounds as a type of open pneumothorax, but is it not more accurate to say that sucking chest wounds are a type of injury which leads to an open pneumothorax? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Chest X-Ray: Sitting or lying?

It is not described how to do the X-Ray. Can someone please help? I would suggest to do it in a lying position since it releaves the the pressure on the affected lung a bit. 91.38.167.199 (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

An article very similar to this Wikipedia article

I read this article here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4203989/. Published in 2014. Quite similar in structure and wordings when compared to this Wikipedia article. Any of you can confirm whether this is plagiarism of Wikipedia article by an external article?