Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30445572›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery2019

The effects of low suction on digital drainage devices after lobectomy using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial†.

Bo Laksáfoss Holbek, Merete Christensen, Henrik Jessen Hansen, Henrik Kehlet, René Horsleben Petersen

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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.

NCT02911259 nacompletednot on this map

Suction on Post-Operative Chest Tubes After Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Lobectomy for Presumed or Confirmed Primary Lung Cancer - At Which Level?

TypeinterventionalSponsorRigshospitalet, DenmarkRan2016 to 2017Enrolled230ConditionsNon-small Cell Lung CancerArmsSuction is set to -2 cmH2O, Suction is set to -10 cmH2O
NCT04913415 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Study to Evaluate a Low Suction (LS) Versus Standard Suction (SS) Strategy for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Lung Resection by VATS or Robotic Approach

TypeinterventionalSponsorAllegheny Singer Research Institute (also known as Allegheny Health Network Research Institute)Ran2021 to 2024Enrolled160ConditionsLung CancerArmsLow Suction Strategy of Chest Tube Management, Standard Suction Strategy of Chest Tube Management
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Progressive Versus Conservative Chest Tube Management Following Surgery for Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A novel closed chest drainage device.Frontiers in medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Patent conversion of a novel closed chest drainage device.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bo Laksáfoss HolbekDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Merete ChristensenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henrik Jessen HansenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henrik KehletUnit of Surgical Pathophysiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
René Horsleben PetersenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe optimal level of suction on digital chest drainage devices after lobectomy using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is unknown and varies between thoracic centres. In this randomized controlled trial, we assessed the potential benefits of low suction of -2 cmH2O compared to -10 cmH2O, using a digital drainage device.

methodsTwo hundred and twenty-eight patients were randomized into 2 groups after VATS lobectomy for suspected or confirmed lung cancer. Primary outcome was time to chest drain removal. Drain data were obtained from the digital drainage devices, and patient data were obtained from medical records during admission, with a follow-up until postoperative day 30.

resultsFor the -2 cmH2O and -10 cmH2O groups, median (interquartile range) drainage duration was 27.4 h (23.3-71.2) and 47.5 h (24.5-117.8) (P = 0.047), and the incidence of prolonged air leak >5 days was 14.4% and 24.3% (P = 0.089), respectively. Median total fluid production was 566 h (329-1155) ml and 795 h (454-1605) ml (P = 0.007). Median time to consistent air leak cessation (<20 ml/min) was 5.2 h (0.3-34.2) and 23.7 h (0.8-90.8) (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the proportion or the size of the pneumothorax or subcutaneous emphysema after drain removal, and no differences were observed in postoperative morbidity. Median length of in-hospital stay was 2.0 days (2.0-5.8) and 3.0 days (2.0-9.0) (P = 0.18).

conclusionsA low suction level significantly shortened drainage duration, time to air leak cessation and total fluid production, without increasing morbidity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02911259.

Indexed as

AgedChest TubesDevice RemovalEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFemaleHumansLength of StayLung NeoplasmsMalePneumonectomySuctionThoracic Surgery, Video-AssistedTime FactorsChest drainsEnhanced recovery after surgeryLength of stayLung cancerProlonged air leakVideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy

Identifiers

PMID30445572

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.