ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Clinical study on the role of modified chest drainage tube in enhanced recovery after uniportal VATS radical surgery for lung cancer.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. 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.
- Analysis of risk factors for prolonged postoperative chest tube drainage after uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery pulmonary resection.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Observational
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluates the impact of a modified chest drainage tube on postoperative recovery and its clinical application value by comparing the drainage efficacy of the modified tube with conventional chest drainage tubes after uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for lung cancer.
methodsA retrospective analysis of clinical data from 100 patients who underwent uniportal VATS radical surgery for lung cancer in the department of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery at our hospital between January 2023 and January 2024 was conducted. Of these, 50 patients received the modified chest drainage tube postoperatively (experimental group), while 50 patients received the conventional chest drainage tube (control group). Postoperative outcomes, including thoracic drainage volume, duration of chest tube placement, length of hospital stay, wound healing, pain levels, and tube reinsertion rates, were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe experimental group demonstrated significantly improved outcomes in terms of chest tube placement duration, length of hospital stay, wound healing, and pain levels compared to the control group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding postoperative thoracic drainage volume and tube reinsertion rates (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe modified chest drainage tube used after uniportal VATS radical surgery for lung cancer exhibits safety and efficacy, facilitates rapid recovery, and demonstrates potential clinical value.
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.