ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Less pain, faster recovery: evaluating 8Fr vs. 22Fr chest tubes in thoracoscopic lung cancer resection.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study is to compare and analyze the clinical data differences between the use of a single ultra-fine 8Fr chest drainage tube and a single 22Fr conventional chest drainage tube, both commonly employed after single-port thoracoscopic lung cancer resection. This comparison aims to evaluate the overall postoperative effectiveness of each method.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 697 patients undergoing this procedure over two years. After exclusions, 665 patients were categorized: Group A (8Fr tube) and Group B (22Fr tube). Propensity score matching (PSM) was then applied to eliminate confounding factors between the two groups. After PSM, 202 pairs (404 patients) were included in both groups. Outcomes compared included postoperative hospital stay, total drainage volume, pain scores (days 1-3), inflammatory markers, complications, Chronic Postsurgical Pain (CPSP), and quality of life (QOL).
resultsGroup A had significantly lower pain scores on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 (all P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (3 [3, 4] vs. 4 [3, 4] days, P = 0.032), and less total drainage volume (180 [130-236.25] ml vs. 255 [170-330] ml, P < 0.001) than Group B. Complication rates and inflammatory markers showed no significant differences (P > 0.05). At one month, Group A reported significantly lower worst/average pain scores (P < 0.001, P = 0.018) and better QOL in activities, mood, work, relationships, and enjoyment (all P < 0.05) compared to Group B. No significant differences existed in mildest pain or walking impact (P > 0.05) or in any pain/QOL measures at 3 months (P > 0.05).
conclusionsCompared to 22Fr tubes, using an 8Fr ultra-fine drain after thoracoscopic lung cancer resection significantly reduces postoperative pain, drainage duration, hospital stay, and total drainage volume. Patients discharged with the 8Fr tube experienced less severe pain and better short-term QOL without increased complications or inflammation. The 8Fr ultra-fine drain is an effective, safe, and clinically valuable alternative.
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.