Comparison of clinical utility between digital and analog drainage systems in patients with spontaneous pneumothorax.

BACKGROUND

Digital drainage systems can continuously and numerically monitor air leakage, which may lead to a shorter duration of drainage and hospitalization; however, the usefulness of digital drainage systems compared to that of analog drainage systems for patients with primary or secondary spontaneous pneumothorax remains unclear.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 108 patients with spontaneous pneumothorax who were successfully treated with chest drainage alone at our institution. We compared the clinical efficacy of digital and analog chest drainage systems.

RESULTS

From the study population, 68 patients were diagnosed with primary and the other 40 with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. The analog drainage system was used in 44 patients, and the digital drainage system in 64 patients. Among patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax, the digital group had a significantly shorter duration of chest drainage than the analog group (median 2 vs. 4 days; p = 0.001), but there was no significant difference in those with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. Additionally, the length and cost of hospitalization in the digital group were significantly lower than those in the analog group for both patients with primary and secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. There was no significant difference in recurrence within 1 week after chest tube removal between the two groups, neither among patients with primary nor among those with secondary pneumothorax.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital drainage system may be better than analog drainage system for patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax who need chest drainage, but further research is needed on drainage system selection for those with secondary disease.