ArticleZhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer2021
[Application of Two Ultrafine Chest Tube for Drainage after Pulmonary Uniportal Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery].
Article in Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Less pain, faster recovery: evaluating 8Fr vs. 22Fr chest tubes in thoracoscopic lung cancer resection.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for chronic pain after thoracoscopic pulmonary resection.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Safety of one 8.5-Fr pigtail catheter for postoperative continuous open gravity drainage after uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery pneumonectomy.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Drainology: Leveraging research in chest-drain management to enhance recovery after cardiothoracic surgery.JTCVS techniques · 2024Article
- Experience of a modified chest tube suture-fixation technique in uniportal thoracoscopic pulmonary resection.BMC surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, an ultrafine chest tube combined with a traditional thick tube were often used after pulmonary uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (U-VATS). However, the thick tube was often placed in the incision, which increased the risk of poor wound healing and postoperative pain. The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility and safety of using two ultrafine chest tubes (10 F pigtail tube) for drainage after pulmonary U-VATS.
methodsThe medical records of patients who underwent pulmonary U-VATS during June 2018 and June 2020 in the department of cardiothoracic surgery of the second affiliated hospital of Soochow university were retrospectively reviewed to compare two different drainage strategies, receiving two 10 F pigtail tubes as chest tube (group A) or one 10 F pigtail tube as lower chest tube combined with one 24 F tube as upper chest tube (group B).
results106 patients in group A receiving two 10 F pigtail tubes during June 2019 and June 2020 and 183 patients in group B receiving one 10 F pigtail tube as lower chest tube combined with one 24 F tube as upper chest tube during June 2018 and June 2019 were included. There was no significant difference between two groups in terms of the postoperative thoracic drainage (mL) (1st: 199.54±126.56 vs 203.59±139.32, P=0.84; 2nd: 340.30±205.47 vs 349.74±230.92, P=0.76; 3rd: 435.19±311.51 vs 451.37±317.03, P=0.70; 4th: 492.58±377.33 vs 512.57±382.94, P=0.69; Total: 604.57±547.24 vs 614.64±546.08, P=0.88), drainage time (d) (upper chest tube: 2.54±2.20 vs 3.40±2.07, P=0.21; lower chest tube: (2.24±2.43 vs 3.82±2.12, P=0.10), postoperative hospital stays (d) (6.87±3.17 vs 7.06±3.21, P=0.63), poor wound healing (0 vs 3.28%, P=0.09), replacement of lower chest tube (0.94% vs 2.19%, P=0.66) and the VAS1 (3.00±0.24 vs 2.99±0.15, P=0.63). Notably, there were significant differences between two groups in terms of the VAS₂ (2.28±0.63 vs 2.92±0.59, P<0.01) and VAS₃ (2.50±1.58 vs 2.79±1.53, P=0.02), as well as the frequency of using additional analgesics (25.47% vs 38.25%, P=0.03) and replacement of the upper chest tube (0 vs 4.37%, P=0.03).
conclusionsIt's feasible and safe to use two 10 F pigtail tubes for drainage after pulmonary U-VATS, which can achieve less postoperative pain and lower frequency of replacement of the upper chest tube on some specific patients.
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.