ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2025
The evolution of chest tube management following lung cancer surgery: many options, scarce evidence.
Review in Translational lung cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From tradition to evidence: a narrative review for standardizing chest tube management after anatomic lung resection.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- The expert consensus document on minimally invasive upper lobectomy for lung cancer in China.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- [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
- The future of lung cancer surgery lies between innovations: synergy across the perioperative ERATS pathway.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After lung cancer surgery, a chest tube is routinely placed to prevent complications such as a pneumothorax or pleural effusion. However, chest tube placement often comes with patient discomfort, impaired mobilization, and prolonged hospitalization, necessitating improved chest drain policies to reduce drainage time or even omit chest drains. In recent years, extensive research has been conducted on chest tube removal criteria and the optimization of thoracic drainage strategies, particularly on the use of suction versus water seal and digital drainage systems versus analogue drainage systems. To date, no clear consensus has been reached on either removal criteria or optimal drainage technique, mostly due to conflicting study outcomes and a lack of high-quality evidence. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of thoracic drainage in the context of lung cancer surgery and to identify potential gaps in current knowledge. It outlines the historical development of thoracic drainage and describes key aspects of current drainage strategies, incorporating both evidence-based and expert-opinion-based findings. Furthermore, we propose several strategies how chest drainage techniques can continue to evolve and become less invasive with the introduction of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol, and thereby explore the possibilities of omitting chest tubes after anatomical resection, as well as patient-specific drainage strategies. In conclusion, standardized definitions and removal criteria for chest drainage are crucial to unify and optimize postoperative care in thoracic surgery. Developing personalized, evidence-based strategies will improve patient outcomes and advance minimally invasive approaches within the ERAS pathways.
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.