ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of single and double chest drains following pulmonary lobectomy.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A simple, novel, noninvasive method to fix the drainage tube to the skin in anal fistula and gastrointestinal surgery: a technical note.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- 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
- Enhanced recovery in lung surgery: coaxial versus conventional chest drains following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy-a prospective randomized trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest tubes are commonly used to empty the chest cavity after pulmonary lobectomy. Although two drains have traditionally been used to guarantee proper air and fluid evacuation, they frequently cause patients more pain and lengthen their hospital stays. This study set out to compare the effectiveness of using a single chest drain versus using two chest drains after a pulmonary lobectomy.
methodsThis retrospective trial was performed on 50 patients aged ≥18 years, both sexes, scheduled for Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy. Patients were divided into two equal groups: Group S: single chest tube was used and Group D: double chest tubes were used.
resultsThe duration of drainage was 3.32 ± 0.69 days in group S and was 4.2 ± 1.29 days in group D (P < 0.05). The amount of drainage was 593.64 ± 45.94 ml in group S and was 910.04 ± 71.42 ml in group D (P < 0.05). Assessment of the pain using the visual analog scale on second day was insignificantly different between both groups and was significantly lower at the second postoperative week in group S than in group D (P = 0.005). Length of hospital stays and complications (pneumonia, re-drainage, and persistent air leak (> 7 days)) were insignificantly different between both groups.
conclusionsThe effectiveness of inserting one chest tube following a pulmonary lobectomy is comparable to that of inserting two tubes. Furthermore, employing a single tube is more advantageous than two tubes, as it is associated with lower postoperative pain, duration and amount of drainage.
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.