ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2018
Is closed thoracic drainage tube necessary for minimally invasive thoracoscopic-esophagectomy?
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of central venous catheter thoracic drainage and traditional closed thoracic drainage following minimally invasive surgery for esophageal carcinoma: a retrospective analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Single chest drain is not inferior to double chest drain after robotic esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)/Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus statement on intraoperative and postoperative interventions to reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy.The British journal of surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClosed thoracic drainage tube (CTDT) is a conventional treatment after esophagectomy, even after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Here, we report a single-center, retrospective study to explore the safety and necessity of CTDT after thoracoscopic-esophagectomy.
methodsFrom October 2015 and August 2016, 50 patients were enrolled and underwent thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position by same surgical team. Perioperative demographic and surgical parameters, and patients' satisfaction with or without CTDT after thoracoscopic-esophagectomy were collected and analyzed.
resultsAll eligible patients (18 patients without CTDT and 32 patients with CTDT) were successfully underwent thoracoscopic procedures without conversion to open approach or major intraoperative complications and perioperative death. The two groups, with similar demographic parameters, had no statistically difference in thoracic operation time, blood loss, ICU stay, postoperative mobilization and oral feeding, and hospital stay. Also, the incidence of postoperative complications was similar with or without CTDT after esophagectomy. But, no-CTDT group had better post-operative satisfaction, including less pain scale scoring and better Norton scoring.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the treatment of no-CTDT after the minimally invasive thoracoscopic-esophagectomy is safe and feasible, might reduce the work intensity of medical stuff and lead to a better patients' experience.
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.