• DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezu535
• Corpus ID: 20787764

Electronic versus traditional chest tube drainage following lobectomy: a randomized trial.

@article{Lijkendijk2015ElectronicVT,
  title={Electronic versus traditional chest tube drainage following lobectomy: a randomized trial.},
  author={Marike Lijkendijk and Peter Bj{\o}rn Licht and Kirsten Neckelmann},
  journal={European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery},
  year={2015},
  volume={48 6},
  pages={
          893-8; discussion 898
        }
}

• Marike Lijkendijk, P. Licht, K. Neckelmann
• Published 1 December 2015
• Medicine
• European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery

OBJECTIVES
Electronic drainage systems have shown superiority compared with traditional (water seal) drainage systems following lung resections, but the number of studies is limited. As part of a medico-technical evaluation, before change of practice to electronic drainage systems for routine thoracic surgery, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating chest tube duration and length of hospitalization.

METHODS
Patients undergoing lobectomy were included in a prospective open label RCT. A strict algorithm was designed for early chest tube removal, and this decision was delegated to staff nurses. Data were analysed by Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusting for lung function, gender, age, BMI, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) or open surgery and presence of incomplete fissure or pleural adhesions. Time was distinguished as possible (optimal) and actual time for chest tube removal, as well as length of hospitalization.

RESULTS
A total of 105 patients were randomized. We found no significant difference between the electronic group and traditional group in optimal chest tube duration (HR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55-1.25; P = 0.367), actual chest tube duration (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.55-1.26; P = 0.397) or length of hospital stay (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.59-1.39; P = 0.651). No chest tubes had to be reinserted. Presence of pleural adhesions or an incomplete fissure was a significant predictor of chest tube duration (HR = 1.72; 95% CI: 1.15-2.77; P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS
Electronic drainage systems did not reduce chest tube duration or length of hospitalization significantly compared with traditional water seal drainage when a strict algorithm for chest tube removal was used. This algorithm allowed delegation of chest tube removal to staff nurses, and in some patients chest tubes could be removed safely on the day of surgery.