Comparison between use of a pleural drainage system with flutter valve and a conventional water-seal drainage system after lung resection: a randomized prospective study.
Rodrigo Caetano de Souza, Lilianne Louise Silva de Morais, Mario Claudio Ghefter, Juliana Pereira Franceschini, Fernando Campos Gomes Pinto
{"title":"Comparison between use of a pleural drainage system with flutter valve and a conventional water-seal drainage system after lung resection: a randomized prospective study.","authors":"Rodrigo Caetano de Souza, Lilianne Louise Silva de Morais, Mario Claudio Ghefter, Juliana Pereira Franceschini, Fernando Campos Gomes Pinto","doi":"10.1590/1516-3180.2023.0224.R1.08022024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is still a debate regarding the most appropriate pleural collector model to ensure a short hospital stay and minimum complications.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To study aimed to compare the time of air leak, time to drain removal, and length of hospital stay between a standard water-seal drainage system and a pleural collector system with a unidirectional flutter valve and rigid chamber.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A randomized prospective clinical trial was conducted at a high-complexity hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-three patients who underwent open or video-assisted thoracoscopic lung wedge resection or lobectomy were randomized into two groups, according to the drainage system used: the control group (WS), which used a conventional water-seal pleural collector, and the study group (V), which used a flutter valve device (Sinapi® Model XL1000®). Variables related to the drainage system, time of air leak, time to drain removal, and time spent in hospital were compared between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most patients (63%) had lung cancer. No differences were observed between the groups in the time of air leak or time spent hospitalized. The time to drain removal was slightly shorter in the V group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Seven patients presented with surgery-related complications: five and two in the WS and V groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Air leak, time to drain removal, and time spent in the hospital were similar between the groups. The system used in the V group resulted in no adverse events and was safe.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>RBR-85qq6jc (https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-85qq6jc).</p>","PeriodicalId":49574,"journal":{"name":"Sao Paulo Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11034882/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sao Paulo Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2023.0224.R1.08022024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: There is still a debate regarding the most appropriate pleural collector model to ensure a short hospital stay and minimum complications.
Objectives: To study aimed to compare the time of air leak, time to drain removal, and length of hospital stay between a standard water-seal drainage system and a pleural collector system with a unidirectional flutter valve and rigid chamber.
Design and setting: A randomized prospective clinical trial was conducted at a high-complexity hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.
Methods: Sixty-three patients who underwent open or video-assisted thoracoscopic lung wedge resection or lobectomy were randomized into two groups, according to the drainage system used: the control group (WS), which used a conventional water-seal pleural collector, and the study group (V), which used a flutter valve device (Sinapi® Model XL1000®). Variables related to the drainage system, time of air leak, time to drain removal, and time spent in hospital were compared between the groups.
Results: Most patients (63%) had lung cancer. No differences were observed between the groups in the time of air leak or time spent hospitalized. The time to drain removal was slightly shorter in the V group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Seven patients presented with surgery-related complications: five and two in the WS and V groups, respectively.
Conclusions: Air leak, time to drain removal, and time spent in the hospital were similar between the groups. The system used in the V group resulted in no adverse events and was safe.
期刊介绍：
Published bimonthly by the Associação Paulista de Medicina, the journal accepts articles in the fields of clinical health science (internal medicine, gynecology and obstetrics, mental health, surgery, pediatrics and public health). Articles will be accepted in the form of original articles (clinical trials, cohort, case-control, prevalence, incidence, accuracy and cost-effectiveness studies and systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis), narrative reviews of the literature, case reports, short communications and letters to the editor. Papers with a commercial objective will not be accepted.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
