Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29445612›Full record

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.

Francesco Guerrera, Pier Luigi Filosso, Cecilia Pompili, Stefania Olivetti, Matteo Roffinella, Andrea Imperatori, Alessandro Brunelli

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04877925 nacompletednot on this map

Coaxial Drainage Versus Standard Chest Tube After Pulmonary Lobectomy: a Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMarco AnileRan2017 to 2020Enrolled98ConditionsLung CancerArmsstandard chest tubes, coaxial chest tube
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Francesco GuerreraDepartment of Surgical Science, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Pier Luigi FilossoDepartment of Surgical Science, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Cecilia PompiliSection of Patient Centered Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Stefania OlivettiDepartment of Surgical Science, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Matteo RoffinellaDepartment of Surgical Science, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Andrea ImperatoriDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Alessandro BrunelliDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

air leakchest drainpleural effusionthoracic surgeryVideo-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS)

Identifiers

PMID29445612
PMCPMC5803136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.