ArticleJournal of visualized surgery2018
Application of the coaxial smart drain in patients with a large air leak following anatomic lung resection: a prospective multicenter phase II analysis of efficacy and safety.
Article in Journal of visualized surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04877925 (Coaxial Drainage Versus Standard Chest Tube After Pulmonary Lobectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Coaxial Drainage Versus Standard Chest Tube After Pulmonary Lobectomy: a Randomized Controlled Study
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coaxial Drainage versus Standard Chest Tube after Pulmonary Lobectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Trial
- Impact of chest tube type on pain, drainage efficacy, and short-term treatment outcome following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial comparing coaxial silicone drains and standard polyvinyl chloride drains.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Drainology: Leveraging research in chest-drain management to enhance recovery after cardiothoracic surgery.JTCVS techniques · 2024Article
- Are the Efficacy and Safety of Chest Tubes in Uniportal Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Related to the Level of Intercostal Space Insertion or to the Drain Type? A Prospective Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe presence of air leak following lung resection remains a frequent problem, which may prolong hospital stay and increase hospital costs. In the past, some studies documented the efficacy of soft and flexible chest tube in patients who underwent thoracic surgery. Nevertheless, safety in case of post-operative large air or liquid leak remains questionable. The objective of this study was to verify through a multicentre study the safety and the effectiveness of the coaxial chest tube in a consecutive series of selected patients who underwent anatomical pulmonary resection and with an active and large air leak.
methodsBetween October 2016 and September 2017, data from patients submitted to anatomical lung resection with curative intent and operated in two Department of Thoracic Surgery of two different were prospectively collected. The inclusion criteria consisted in the presence of an air leak greater than 50 mL/min measured with a digital drainage system during the 3 postoperative hours. A descriptive statistic was used to report the incidence of complications assumed to be associated with the use of the coaxial drain.
resultsForty-eight consecutive patients (27 males) submitted to lobectomy (37 patients: 77%) or anatomic segmentectomies (11 patients) were included in the analyses. Thirty-four operations (71%) were performed by video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). The median duration of chest tubes was 13 days [interquartile range (IQR), 4-19] and the median duration of air leak was 9 days (IQR, 2-17.5). No patient had undrained postoperative pleural effusion judged to require an additional chest tube placement. There were 12 (25%) cases of clinically or radiologically significant surgical emphysema; in none of these patients any additional procedure or re-operation was required, and they were treated conservatively by increasing the level of suction.
conclusionsOur experience with this novel Coaxial Drain was satisfactory with no clinically relevant complication caused using this drain, no need to insert additional drain or replace the existing one with another drain a duration of air leak and chest tubes as well as the incidence of subcutaneous emphysema that was in line with what observed in the daily practice in similar highly selected patients with large air leak.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.