Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 9;8(7):e68087. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068087. Print 2013.
To evaluate whether external suction is more advantageous than water seal in patients undergoing selective pulmonary resection (SPR) for lung neoplasm.
Whether external suction should be routinely applied in postoperative chest drainage is still unclear, particularly for lung neoplasm patients. To most surgeons, the decision is based on their clinical experience.
Randomized control trials were selected. The participants were patients undergoing SPR with lung neoplasm. Lung volume reduction surgery and pneumothorax were excluded. Suction versus non-suction for the intervention. The primary outcome was the incidence of persistent air leak (PAL). The definition of PAL was air leak for more than 3-7 days. The secondary outcomes included air leak duration, time of drainage, postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative pneumothorax. Studies were identified from literature collections through screening. Bias was analyzed and meta-analysis was used.
From the 1824 potentially relevant trials, 6 randomized control trials involving 676 patients were included. There was no difference between external suction and water seal in decreasing the incidence of PAL [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-2.16; z = 1.10; P = 0.27]. Regarding secondary outcomes, there were no differences in time of drainage (95% CI-0.36-1.56, P = 0.22), postoperative hospital stay (95% CI -.31-.54, P = 0.87) or incidence of postoperative pneumothorax (95% CI 0.18-.02, P = 0.05) between external suction and water seal.
For participants, no differences are identified in terms of PAL incidence, drainage time, length of postoperative hospital stay or incidence of postoperative pneumothorax between external suction and water seal. The bias analysis should be emphasized. To the limitations of the bias and methodological differences among the included studies, we have no recommendation on whether external suction should be routinely applied after lung neoplasm SPR. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.
None.
评估在接受选择性肺切除术(SPR)治疗肺部肿瘤的患者中,外部吸引是否比水封更有优势。
术后胸腔引流是否应常规应用外部吸引仍不清楚,特别是对于肺部肿瘤患者。对于大多数外科医生来说,这个决定是基于他们的临床经验。
选择随机对照试验。参与者为接受 SPR 治疗肺部肿瘤的患者。排除了肺减容手术和气胸。干预措施为吸引与非吸引。主要结局是持续性气漏(PAL)的发生率。PAL 的定义为漏气超过 3-7 天。次要结局包括漏气持续时间、引流时间、术后住院时间和术后气胸的发生率。通过筛选从文献中确定研究。分析偏倚并进行荟萃分析。
从 1824 项潜在相关试验中,纳入了 6 项随机对照试验,共 676 名患者。外部吸引与水封在降低 PAL 发生率方面没有差异[95%置信区间(CI)0.81-2.16;z=1.10;P=0.27]。关于次要结局,引流时间(95%CI-0.36-1.56,P=0.22)、术后住院时间(95%CI-.31-.54,P=0.87)或术后气胸发生率(95%CI 0.18-.02,P=0.05)在外部吸引与水封之间无差异。
对于参与者,在 PAL 发生率、引流时间、术后住院时间或术后气胸发生率方面,外部吸引与水封之间没有差异。应强调偏倚分析。由于纳入研究的偏倚和方法学差异的限制,我们对肺部肿瘤 SPR 后是否应常规应用外部吸引没有建议。需要更多高质量的随机对照试验。
无。