Trial reportPloS one2024
Is it safe and feasible to use multi-lateral-pores drainage strategy after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery?
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvidence-based studies optimizing chest tube management have been conducted to accelerate the recovery process for lung cancer patients after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). This study is to evaluate whether using the multi-lateral pores chest tube can achieve better drainage performance than conventional-lateral-pore drainage.
methodsData from patients undergoing VATS were consecutively collected from September 2023 to June 2024. The groups were randomized into two subgroups, which were multi-lateral-pores drainage group (MDG) and conventional-lateral-pore drainage group (CDG). The primary outcomes included chest drainage performance, and the secondary outcomes included postoperative complications (PPCs).
resultsAfter screening, 228 patients were randomized into two groups, in which 116 patients in MDG and 112 patients in CDG. The daily drainage volume [199.70 (95%CI: 165.19~234.99) mL/d vs 149.43 (95%CI: 120.70~179.21) mL/d, P<0.01] and total drainage volume [342.79 (95%CI: 291.91~392.63) mL vs 272.68 (95%CI: 225.87~322.11) mL, P = 0.04] in the MDG was significantly higher that that in the CDG. The drainage duration in the MDG was also less than that in the CDG [36.41 (95%CI: 32.23~40.72) h vs 51.02 (95%CI: 46.03~56.38) h, P < 0.01]. The incidence of pleural effusion was lower in the MDG when compared with that in CDG (1.7% vs 9.0%, P = 0.04). No differences were found in the other incidences of chest tube-related PPCs, including pneumothorax (12.0% vs 15.2%, P = 0.15) and subcutaneous emphysema (17.2% vs 17.9%, P = 0.35), however.
conclusionsBased on this single-center analysis, multi-lateral pores chest tube provided better drainage performance after VATS.
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.