Talk:Pneumothorax

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Start

message: 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)
replies: text: Tension pneumothorax is what you want. JFW | T@lk 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I have cleaned up the article and added links to the tension article.DocJohnny 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tension pneumothorax 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrectly Labelled Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Readability for the lay person 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Future Health Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  bagpipes 

message: 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. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Acupuncture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Whoa!  Not the whole lung! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cause of Pnueumothorax 

message: 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.  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)
replies: text: review in children. JFW | T@lk 11:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: - 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)

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

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

text: Spontaneous pneumothorax - review in ERJ, usually a very good source. JFW | T@lk 12:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  - BMJ review with emphasis on the imaging of pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible merger 

message: 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.
#  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)
#  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
#  Mechanism
#: Mainly requires expansion and better sources
#  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)
#  Management
#: Needs to separated between acute management and relapse prevention.
#  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)
#  Epidemiology
#: New section, mostly from Tschopp and BTS
#  History
#: Need historical reference for Itard, more on other treatments and when they were introduced.
#  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)
thread_title: Updating

message: 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!  JFW | T@lk 20:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 , but it doesn't work. Here's a direct link. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 06:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Kjaergaard 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ! Learn new stuff every day. Does pmid:3443159 also work? JFW | T@lk 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, it does not. JFW | T@lk 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  But here is another one you might not know yet:  will automatically turn into:  --WS (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Recurrence risk in smokers

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air in the pleural space 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another Diagnosis Method 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lancet case report 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pre-FAC scan 

message: Today  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reorganisation by Snowmanradio 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead image suggestion 

message: upright|thumb|right|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
 (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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: :"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Point taken, out of context it doesn't make sense.  | pulmonological talk • contribs  02:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pediatric incidence 

message: added the following content:
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Seems sensible to me  Dbann (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary source about bullae 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possibly notable case of pnuemothorax? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trauma 

message: I made the following addition regarding pneumos of the Open/Closed/Sucking chest wound varieties .  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)
thread_title:  Open/Closed/Sucking chest wound 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chest X-Ray: Sitting or lying?