Trial reportThe Annals of thoracic surgery2023
Randomized Trial of Modified Chest Tube Placement vs Routine Placement After Lung Resection.
Trial report in The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between modified same-intercostal chest tube placement and acute postoperative pain after uniportal VATS lobectomy: an overlap weighted retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Preferred management of post-operative chest tube placement after lung resection.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest tube placement after pulmonary resection is usually considered a mandatory procedure. However, peritubular leakage of pleural fluid and intrathoracic air is frequent after surgery. Therefore, we separated the chest tube from the intercostal space as a modified placement strategy.
methodsPatients undergoing robotic and video-assisted lung resection were enrolled in this study at our medical center between February 2021 and August 2021. All patients were randomly divided into either the modified group (n = 98) or the routine group (n = 101). The incidence of peritubular leakage of pleural fluid and peritubular air leaking or entering after surgery were the primary end points of the study.
resultsA total of 199 patients were randomized. Patients in the modified group had lower incidence of peritubular leakage of pleural fluid (after surgery, 39.6% vs 18.4% [P = .001]; after chest tube removal, 26.7% vs 11.2% [P = .005]), lower incidence of peritubular air leaking or entering (14.9% vs 5.1% [P = .022]), and fewer dressing changes (5.02 ± 2.30 vs 3.48 ± 0.94 [P < .001]). In patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, the type of chest tube placement was associated with the severity of peritubular pleural fluid leakage (P < .05).
conclusionsThe modified chest tube placement was safe and had better clinical efficacy than the routine type. The reduction of postoperative peritubular leakage of pleural fluid resulted in better wound recovery. This modified strategy should be popularized, especially in patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy or segmentectomy.
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.