Outcomes after 4 years' experience with low suction drains. Would it be safe to go drainless or low suction?

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1186/s13019-024-02824-6
Mithat Fazlioglu, Walid Hammad, Deniz Piyadeoglu, Cemal Asim Kutlu
{"title":"Outcomes after 4 years' experience with low suction drains. Would it be safe to go drainless or low suction?","authors":"Mithat Fazlioglu, Walid Hammad, Deniz Piyadeoglu, Cemal Asim Kutlu","doi":"10.1186/s13019-024-02824-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The principles of chest drainage have not changed significantly since 1875 when Bülau introduced the idea of underwater drainage tube which became a trademark of thoracic surgery. We performed a prospective, randomized trial comparing omitting pleural drain (drainless group) versus drainage with small low suction drain (drainage group) strategies of thoracic surgery when the visceral pleura remains intact. Aiming to investigate whether these approaches represent safe treatment options.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multi-center, prospective, parallel group, randomized, controlled trial enrolling patients after thoracic procedures in which visceral pleura remained intact at the end of surgery between August 2020 and September 2023. After completion of the procedure a suction-seal test was conducted on all patients. If suction-seal test was positive to confirm absence of air leak, patients were randomized to either receive low auto-suction drain as a solo pleural drain (drainage group) or not to receive drain (drainless group).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 111 patients were recruited. Eleven patients had negative Suction-seal test and were excluded by inserting a traditional underwater seal. The remaining 100 patients were randomly assigned to either drainage group with low suction drain (Fig. 1) (n = 50) or drainless group (n = 50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study suggest that either omitting drain or inserting a low auto suction drain safely substitutes the one-way valve when the visceral pleura remains intact. Omitting drain or inserting portable small caliber drain encourages early mobilization and is associated with shorter hospital stay.</p>","PeriodicalId":15201,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11253424/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02824-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The principles of chest drainage have not changed significantly since 1875 when Bülau introduced the idea of underwater drainage tube which became a trademark of thoracic surgery. We performed a prospective, randomized trial comparing omitting pleural drain (drainless group) versus drainage with small low suction drain (drainage group) strategies of thoracic surgery when the visceral pleura remains intact. Aiming to investigate whether these approaches represent safe treatment options.

Methods: A multi-center, prospective, parallel group, randomized, controlled trial enrolling patients after thoracic procedures in which visceral pleura remained intact at the end of surgery between August 2020 and September 2023. After completion of the procedure a suction-seal test was conducted on all patients. If suction-seal test was positive to confirm absence of air leak, patients were randomized to either receive low auto-suction drain as a solo pleural drain (drainage group) or not to receive drain (drainless group).

Results: During the study period, 111 patients were recruited. Eleven patients had negative Suction-seal test and were excluded by inserting a traditional underwater seal. The remaining 100 patients were randomly assigned to either drainage group with low suction drain (Fig. 1) (n = 50) or drainless group (n = 50).

Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that either omitting drain or inserting a low auto suction drain safely substitutes the one-way valve when the visceral pleura remains intact. Omitting drain or inserting portable small caliber drain encourages early mobilization and is associated with shorter hospital stay.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用低吸力排水管 4 年后的结果。使用无引流管或低吸引引流管是否安全?
背景:自 1875 年比劳(Bülau)提出水下引流管的概念并成为胸腔手术的标志以来,胸腔引流的原则一直没有发生重大变化。我们进行了一项前瞻性随机试验,比较了在内脏胸膜保持完整的情况下,胸腔手术中不使用胸膜引流管(无引流管组)和使用小型低吸引引流管(引流组)的策略。旨在研究这些方法是否是安全的治疗方案:一项多中心、前瞻性、平行分组、随机对照试验,在 2020 年 8 月至 2023 年 9 月期间,对胸腔手术后内脏胸膜在手术结束时仍完好无损的患者进行招募。手术结束后,对所有患者进行抽吸密封测试。如果抽吸密封测试结果呈阳性,确认没有漏气,患者将被随机分为接受低位自动抽吸引流管作为单独胸膜引流管(引流组)或不接受引流管(无引流管组):研究期间共招募了 111 名患者。结果:在研究期间,共招募了 111 名患者,其中 11 名患者的抽吸密封测试结果为阴性,因此通过插入传统的水下密封装置将其排除在外。其余 100 名患者被随机分配到使用低吸引引流管(图 1)的引流组(50 人)或无引流管组(50 人):本研究结果表明,在内脏胸膜保持完整的情况下,省略引流管或插入低自吸引流管均可安全地替代单向阀。省略引流管或插入便携式小口径引流管可促进早期活动,并缩短住院时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
286
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of research in the field of Cardiology, and Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery. The journal publishes original scientific research documenting clinical and experimental advances in cardiac, vascular and thoracic surgery, and related fields. Topics of interest include surgical techniques, survival rates, surgical complications and their outcomes; along with basic sciences, pediatric conditions, transplantations and clinical trials. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery is of interest to cardiothoracic and vascular surgeons, cardiothoracic anaesthesiologists, cardiologists, chest physicians, and allied health professionals.
期刊最新文献
Bullectomy with video-assisted thoracic surgery and minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum simultaneously. Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with in-stent restenosis: An updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Fungal endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation complicated with pseudoaneurysm of the ascending aorta. Impella 5.5 as a bridge-to-surgery in acute ischemic mitral regurgitation post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a case report. Correction: Clinical features between paroxysmal and nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation: a comparative analysis in eastern China.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1