ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Advantages of negative-pressure suction device compared to traditional chest closed drainage in the management of patients after mediastinal mass resection.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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
Background: Mediastinal mass resection commonly requires postoperative drainage to prevent complications including pleural effusion, pneumothorax, and hematoma. Traditional chest closed drainage (TCCD) remains the standard approach, yet limitations in drainage efficiency, patient comfort, and recovery time have prompted exploration of alternatives. Negative-pressure suction devices (NPSD) offer enhanced drainage capabilities and may reduce postoperative complications, but comparative evidence on their clinical effectiveness, safety, and patient outcomes remains scarce. This retrospective cohort study aimed to systematically compare NPSD versus TCCD following mediastinal mass resection, focusing on chest tube duration, length of stay, and patient recovery outcomes. Methods: A total of 174 patients from a single Chinese center (September 2021 to February 2025) were included and assigned to TCCD group (n=111) or NPSD group (n=63) based on postoperative drainage choice. Outcomes included chest tube duration, length of stay, tube reinsertion, postoperative fever, pain scores, and other drainage parameters; baseline and perioperative variables were systematically collected. Results: Groups were similar in demographics and most comorbidities; the NPSD group had higher body mass index (BMI) and fewer myasthenia gravis cases. The NPSD group reduced chest tube duration and length of stay versus TCCD group (57.43±18.99 Conclusions: The NPSD group shortens drainage duration and length of stay without increasing major complications, supporting its feasibility within enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols.
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.