Trial reportEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Traditional chest drainage versus drainage by thoracotomy: a prospective randomized study.
Trial report in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Drainology: Leveraging research in chest-drain management to enhance recovery after cardiothoracic surgery.JTCVS techniques · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the chest tube drainage by the same thoracotomy intercostal space with the traditional approach in patients undergoing muscle-sparing thoracotomy.
methodsWe evaluated 40 patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective muscle sparing thoracotomies. Patients were divided into two groups of 20 patients. One group underwent thoracic drainage by the same intercostal space of thoracotomy and the other by traditional chest drainage approach.
resultsThe mean length of hospital stay for the intercostal drainage group in the intensive care unit was 1.5 day (1.0 to 2.0 days) and 2.0 days (25.1 to 3.0 days) for the traditional chest drainage group (p=0.060). The intercostal drainage group had mean length of hospital stay (p=0.527) and drainage (p=0.547) of 4 days, and the traditional chest drainage group and 2 and 5.5 days, respectively. Dipirona and tramadol doses did not differ between groups (p=0.201 and p=0.341). The mean pain scale values on first postoperative was 4.24 in the drainage by the same intercostal group and 3.95 in the traditional chest drainage (p=0.733). In third postoperative day, mean was 3.18 for the first group and 3.11 for the traditional group (p=0.937). In the 15th day after surgery, drainage by the incision was 1.53 and the traditional chest drainage was 2.11 (p=0.440), 30th days after drainage by incision was 0.71 and traditional chest drainage was 0.84 (p=0.787). Complications, for both groups were similar with 30% in proposed drainage and 25% in traditional approach (p=0.723).
conclusionDrainage by the same thoracotomy intercostal space was feasible and results 30 days after surgery were not inferior to those of the traditional chest drainage approach.
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.