Comparison of digital and traditional thoracic drainage systems for postoperative chest tube management after pulmonary resection: A prospective randomized trial

10Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a digital thoracic drainage system (group D) is clinically useful compared with a traditional thoracic drainage system (group T) in chest tube management following anatomic lung resection. Methods: Patients scheduled to undergo segmentectomy or lobectomy were prospectively randomized before surgery to group D or T. A stratification randomization was performed according to the following air leak risk factors: age, sex, smoking status, and presence of emphysema and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The primary end point was the duration of chest tube placement. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between groups D (n = 135) and T (n = 164) with regard to the duration of chest tube placement (median, 2.0 vs 3.0 days; P =.149), duration of hospitalization (median, 6.0 vs 7.0 days; P =.548), or frequency of postoperative adverse events (25.1% vs 20.7%; P =.361). In subgroup analyses of the 64 patients with postoperative air leak (20 in group D and 44 in group T), the duration of chest tube placement (median, 4.5 vs 4.0 days; P =.225) and duration of postoperative air leak (median, 3.0 vs 3.0 days; P =.226) were not significantly different between subgroups. Conclusions: The use of a digital thoracic drainage system did not shorten the duration of chest tube placement in comparison to a traditional thoracic drainage system after anatomic lung resection.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Takamochi, K., Nojiri, S., Oh, S., Matsunaga, T., Imashimizu, K., Fukui, M., & Suzuki, K. (2018). Comparison of digital and traditional thoracic drainage systems for postoperative chest tube management after pulmonary resection: A prospective randomized trial. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 155(4), 1834–1840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.09.145

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free