Clinical Evaluation and Outcomes of Digital Chest Drainage after Lung Resection.

F. Shoji, S. Takamori, T. Akamine, G. Toyokawa, Y. Morodomi, T. Okamoto, Y. Maehara
{"title":"Clinical Evaluation and Outcomes of Digital Chest Drainage after Lung Resection.","authors":"F. Shoji, S. Takamori, T. Akamine, G. Toyokawa, Y. Morodomi, T. Okamoto, Y. Maehara","doi":"10.5761/atcs.oa.16-00179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nAnalog chest drainage systems (ACS) are generally used to monitor postoperative alveolar air leakage (PAL) after lung resection. An electronic digital chest drainage system (DCS) has recently been developed that reportedly has several advantages over the traditional ACS. Here, we report a single institution's experience of PAL management with the DCS. We also sought to establish whether DCS had superior clinical benefits and outcomes compared with ACS.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe enrolled 112 consecutive patients who underwent lung resection and were subsequently managed with DCS. We compared PAL rate, duration of chest drainage, and the incidence of complications with a group of 121 consecutive patients previously managed with ACS after lung resection, using propensity score matching.\n\n\nRESULTS\nMean maximum and minimum PAL rates during DCS chest drainage were 48.9 ml/min (range: 2.0-868.6 ml/min) and 0.1 ml/min (0.0-1.2 ml/min), respectively. Mean PAL rate at DCS removal was 1.3 ml/min (0.0-10.0 ml/min). After propensity score matching, mean duration of chest drainage was significantly shorter with DCS than ACS (2.7 days, range: 1-9 days, compared with 3.7 days, range: 1-21 days, respectively; P = 0.031).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nManaging PAL with DCS after pulmonary resection appears to reduce the duration of chest drainage.","PeriodicalId":93877,"journal":{"name":"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.16-00179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

BACKGROUND Analog chest drainage systems (ACS) are generally used to monitor postoperative alveolar air leakage (PAL) after lung resection. An electronic digital chest drainage system (DCS) has recently been developed that reportedly has several advantages over the traditional ACS. Here, we report a single institution's experience of PAL management with the DCS. We also sought to establish whether DCS had superior clinical benefits and outcomes compared with ACS. METHODS We enrolled 112 consecutive patients who underwent lung resection and were subsequently managed with DCS. We compared PAL rate, duration of chest drainage, and the incidence of complications with a group of 121 consecutive patients previously managed with ACS after lung resection, using propensity score matching. RESULTS Mean maximum and minimum PAL rates during DCS chest drainage were 48.9 ml/min (range: 2.0-868.6 ml/min) and 0.1 ml/min (0.0-1.2 ml/min), respectively. Mean PAL rate at DCS removal was 1.3 ml/min (0.0-10.0 ml/min). After propensity score matching, mean duration of chest drainage was significantly shorter with DCS than ACS (2.7 days, range: 1-9 days, compared with 3.7 days, range: 1-21 days, respectively; P = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS Managing PAL with DCS after pulmonary resection appears to reduce the duration of chest drainage.
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
肺切除术后指胸引流的临床评价及效果。
模拟胸腔引流系统(ACS)通常用于监测肺切除术后肺泡漏气(PAL)。电子数字胸腔引流系统(DCS)最近被开发出来,据报道它比传统的ACS有几个优点。在这里,我们报告一个机构的经验,PAL管理与DCS。我们还试图确定DCS与ACS相比是否具有更好的临床益处和结果。方法:我们招募了112例连续接受肺切除术并随后进行DCS治疗的患者。我们使用倾向评分匹配法比较了121例连续肺切除术后ACS患者的PAL率、胸腔引流时间和并发症发生率。结果DCS胸腔引流术中PAL平均最大值48.9 ml/min(范围:2.0 ~ 868.6 ml/min),最小值0.1 ml/min(范围:0.0 ~ 1.2 ml/min)。DCS去除的PAL平均速率为1.3 ml/min (0.0-10.0 ml/min)。倾向评分匹配后,DCS组胸腔引流的平均持续时间明显短于ACS组(分别为2.7天,范围1-9天,3.7天,范围1-21天);P = 0.031)。结论肺切除术后用DCS处理PAL可缩短胸腔引流时间。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lateral Dorsal Basal Lung Resection Based on Functional Preserving Sublobectomy Method: Single-Center Experience. A Novel Method of Real-Time Assessment for Coronary Artery Anastomosis Skill. Can Open Distal Repair Be Safely Used in All Patients with Type A Acute Aortic Dissection? Long-Term Outcomes of Simple Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Based on the Initial Aortic Diameter. Total Arterial Revascularization: Evaluating the Length of the Radial Artery in a Composite Graft Configuration.
×
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