Key result
Digital drainage systems significantly reduced chest tube duration (2.07 vs. 2.73 days, P=0.03) and hospital length of stay (4.02 vs. 5.06 days, P=0.010) compared to traditional methods.
Why the study?
Does the use of digital drainage systems reduce postoperative chest tube days and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy with RATS approach compared to traditional systems?
Cohort
Does the use of digital drainage systems reduce postoperative chest tube days and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy with RATS approach compared to traditional systems?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.07% vs 2.73%
p-value: p=0.03
Digital drainage systems significantly reduce chest tube duration and hospital length of stay compared to traditional systems in patients undergoing RATS pulmonary lobectomy.
Jacobsen et al., present a retrospective study evaluating digital drainage systems applied to patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy with robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgical (RATS) approach (1). Digital and traditional chest tube drainage systems were compared, with all operations carried out by the same surgeon to control for variance. Assessed outcome measures included postoperative chest tube days, hospital length of stay, chest tube reinsertion during hospitalization, and 30-day readmission for pneumothorax. There were clear criteria for chest drain removal in each group. The authors demonstrated that chest tube duration and length of stay were significantly reduced with the use of a digital system versus traditional method (2.07 vs. 2.73 days, P=0.03 and 4.02 vs. 5.06 days, P=0.010, respectively). Chest tube reinsertion was fourtimes more likely with traditional system use, however, this Cite this article as:
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joshi et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Pulmonary lobectomy. Digital drainage systems vs. Traditional chest tube drainage systems was evaluated on Chest tube duration (days) (p=0.03). Digital drainage systems significantly reduced chest tube duration (2.07 vs. 2.73 days, P=0.03) and hospital length of stay (4.02 vs. 5.06 days, P=0.010) compared to traditional methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: