ArticleSeminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2021
Simulation and Measurement of Aerosolisation in Different Chest Drainage Systems.
Article in Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drainology: Leveraging research in chest-drain management to enhance recovery after cardiothoracic surgery.JTCVS techniques · 2024Article
- Commentary-Aerosolization From Chest Drainage Systems in Patients With Air Leak: Risk of Viral Spreading in the Hospital and Community.Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2021Article
- Commentary: Covid 19: Don't Throw Caution to the Wind Nor Air Leak. Use PPE!Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2021Article
- Anesthetic Management for Thoracic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Current anesthesiology reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to assess the degree of aerosolisation in different chest drainage systems according to different air leak volumes, in a simulated environment. This novel simulation model was designed to produce an air leak by passing air through and agitating a fluorescent fluid. The air leak volume and amount of fluorescent fluid were tested in various combinations and aerosolisation was assessed at 10-minute intervals using the ultraviolet light. The following chest drainage systems were compared: (1) single-chamber chest drainage system, (2) 3-compartment wet-dry suction chest drainage system, (3) digital drainage and monitoring system. The impact of suction (-2 and -4 kPa) in generating aerosolised particles was tested as well. A total number of 187 of 10-minute interval measurements were performed. The single-chamber chest drainage system generated the largest number of aerosolised particles at different air leak volumes and drainage output. The 3-compartment wet-dry suction system and the digital drainage and monitoring system did not generate any identifiable aerosolised particles at any of the air leak or drain output volumes considered. Suction applied to the chest drainage systems did not have an effect on aerosolisation. Aerosol generation in the simulated air-leak model demonstrated the potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the clinical setting. Full personal protective equipment must be used in patients with an air leak. Single-chamber chest drainage system generates the highest rate of aerosolised particles and it should not be used as an open system in patients with an 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.