ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Implications of modernized chest tube management after anatomic lung resection as an aspect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS).
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From tradition to evidence: a narrative review for standardizing chest tube management after anatomic lung resection.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Following anatomic lung resection, chest tubes are required for fluid and air evacuation. Delayed removal can considerably prolong pain and immobilization during the postoperative course. We aimed to analyse the impact of an adaptation of the chest tube management on aspects regarding enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Methods: Patients at our institution were treated according to two different protocols with the new protocol allowing chest tube removal up to a fluid output of 500 mL/24 h, and the standard protocol insisting on an output ≤200 mL/24 h. We retrospectively collected data in these two groups between January 2021 and December 2022 with a focus on aspects of ERAS. Results: A total of 150 patients were included in this retrospective observational study, of whom 62 (41.3%) were treated according to the new protocol and 88 (58.7%) with the standard protocol. There were no differences in the patient characteristics between the two groups. With the new protocol, chest tubes were removed at a mean output of 230±30.3 mL during the last 24 hours, whilst with the standard protocol mean output was 161±7.9 mL (P<0.001). If a higher fluid output was tolerated, chest tubes could be removed 1.5 days earlier {median 2 [interquartile range (IQR), 1-4] Conclusions: Chest tube removal up to a volume threshold of 500 mL/24 h after anatomic lung resection does not lead to increased complications, particularly thoracic interventions. All ERAS protocols should be designed accordingly.
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.