Traditional chest drainage versus drainage by thoracotomy: a prospective randomized study

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the chest tube drainage by the same thoracotomy intercostal space with the traditional approach in patients undergoing muscle-sparing thoracotomy. METHODS: We evaluated 40 patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective muscle sparing thoracotomies. Patients were divided into two groups of 20 patients. One group underwent thoracic drainage by the same intercostal space of thoracotomy and the other by traditional chest drainage approach. RESULTS: The mean length of hospital stay for the intercostal drainage group in the intensive care unit was 1.5 day (1.0 to 2.0 days) and 2.0 days (25.1 to 3.0 days) for the traditional chest drainage group (p=0.060). The intercostal drainage group had mean length of hospital stay (p=0.527) and drainage (p=0.547) of 4 days, and the traditional chest drainage group and 2 and 5.5 days, respectively. Dipirona and tramadol doses did not differ between groups (p=0.201 and p=0.341). The mean pain scale values on first postoperative was 4.24 in the drainage by the same intercostal group and 3.95 in the traditional chest drainage (p=0.733). In third postoperative day, mean was 3.18 for the first group and 3.11 for the traditional group (p=0.937). In the 15th day after surgery, drainage by the incision was 1.53 and the traditional chest drainage was 2.11 (p=0.440), 30th days after drainage by incision was 0.71 and traditional chest drainage was 0.84 (p=0.787). Complications, for both groups were similar with 30% in proposed drainage and 25% in traditional approach (p=0.723). CONCLUSION: Drainage by the same thoracotomy intercostal space was feasible and results 30 days after surgery were not inferior to those of the traditional chest drainage approach.