ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Chest drainage outcomes by water seal versus low suction on digital drainage systems after lung resection: retrospective study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Digital Drainage Systems in Postoperative Chest Tube Management after Pulmonary Resection: Current Status and Future Perspectives].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Review
- Suction Impact on Chest Drain Duration After Lung Resection: A Study Using Digital Drainage Systems.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- From Alveolar Injury to Precision Perioperative Care: Integrating Molecular Biomarkers and Technology-Enabled Strategies for Prolonged Air Leak After Lung Resection.Mediators of inflammation · 2026Review
- Inferior pulmonary ligament dissection after thoracoscopic bullectomy for primary pneumothorax prevents recurrence.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- The evolution of chest tube management following lung cancer surgery: many options, scarce evidence.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Review
- Clinical outcomes of digital versus traditional chest drains after thoracic surgery: a narrative review of randomised trials.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite advances in chest drainage technology, such as the use of digital drainage systems (DDS), there is still no consensus on the most effective method for reducing air leaks after lung resection. To evaluate the optimal drainage method, we compared traditional water seal with low suction pressure settings on DDS. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the postoperative data of patients between August 2015 and April 2023 who underwent anatomical lung resection at our hospital and who had postoperative chest drains managed with either a water seal or DDS set to low suction pressure. We excluded cases without air leak on the first postoperative morning from the consideration in this study. We divided the patients into two groups according to the chest drainage method on the first postoperative morning and we compared air leak and chest drainage durations of both groups. Results: We retrospectively analyzed 116 patients. The groups (water seal: 59 patients; low suction: 57 patients) were well balanced for baseline and degree of air leakage on the first operative morning. The water seal group showed significantly shorter air leak duration (2 Conclusions: Water seal management was suggested to be safe and comparably effective to low suction on DDS in reducing air leak and chest drainage durations after lung resection.
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.