Palleiko Benjamin A, Singh Anupama, Strader Christopher, Patil Tanmay, Crawford Allison, Emmerick Isabel, Lou Feiran, Uy Karl, Maxfield Mark W
School of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
J Thorac Dis. 2024 May 31;16(5):2963-2974. doi: 10.21037/jtd-23-1747. Epub 2024 May 16.
Digital chest drainage systems (DCDS) provide reliable pleural drainage while quantifying fluid output and air leak. However, the benefits of DCDS in the contemporary era of minimally invasive thoracic surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have not been fully investigated. Additionally, hospital and resident staff experiences after implementation of a DCDS have not been fully explored. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and hospital staff experience after adoption of a DCDS for minimally invasive lung resections.
A single-center retrospective review of patients who underwent minimally invasive lung resection (lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection) and received a DCDS from 11/1/2021 to 11/1/2022. DCDS patients were compared to sequential historical controls (3/1/2019-6/30/2021) who received a analog chest drainage system. For the analog system, chest tubes were removed when no bubbles were observed in the water seal compartment with Valsalva, cough, and in variable positions. With a DCDS, chest tubes were removed when the air leak was less than 30 cc/min for 8 hours, with no spikes. All patients followed an institutional ERAS protocol. Primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and chest tube duration. Hospital staff and residents were surveyed regarding their experience.
One hundred and twenty-four patients received DCDS, and 248 received an analog chest drainage system. There was a reduction in mean LOS (3.6 . 4.4 days, P=0.01) and chest tube duration (2.7 . 3.6 days, P=0.03) in the DCDS group. Hospital staff (n=77, 46% response rate) reported the DCDS easier to use (60%, P<0.001) and easier to care for patients with (65%, P<0.001) compared to the analog system. Surgical residents (n=28, 56% response rate) reported increased confidence in interpretation of air leak (75%, P<0.001) and decision-making surrounding chest tube removal (79%, P<0.001).
Using a DCDS can reduce LOS and chest tube duration in the contemporary setting of minimally invasive lung resections and ERAS protocols. Increased confidence of resident decision-making for chest tube removal may contribute to improved outcomes.
数字式胸腔引流系统(DCDS)在量化液体引流量和漏气量的同时,能提供可靠的胸腔引流。然而,在当代微创胸外科手术和术后加速康复(ERAS)方案的背景下,DCDS的益处尚未得到充分研究。此外,DCDS实施后医院工作人员和住院医师的体验也未得到充分探讨。本研究的目的是评估在微创肺切除术中采用DCDS后的临床结局及医院工作人员的体验。
对2021年11月1日至2022年11月1日期间接受微创肺切除术(肺叶切除术、肺段切除术和楔形切除术)并使用DCDS的患者进行单中心回顾性研究。将使用DCDS的患者与之前连续的历史对照组(2019年3月1日至2021年6月30日)进行比较,历史对照组使用的是模拟胸腔引流系统。对于模拟系统,在瓦尔萨尔瓦动作、咳嗽及不同体位时,水封瓶内无气泡出现时拔除胸管。对于DCDS,当漏气量小于30cc/分钟持续8小时且无峰值时拔除胸管。所有患者均遵循机构的ERAS方案。主要结局指标为住院时间(LOS)和胸管留置时间。对医院工作人员和住院医师就他们的体验进行了调查。
124例患者使用了DCDS,248例患者使用了模拟胸腔引流系统。DCDS组的平均住院时间(3.6比4.4天,P = 0.01)和胸管留置时间(2.7比3.6天,P = 0.03)均有所缩短。医院工作人员(n = 77,应答率46%)报告称,与模拟系统相比,DCDS使用起来更方便(60%,P < 0.001),护理患者也更容易(65%,P < 0.001)。外科住院医师(n = 28,应答率56%)报告称,对漏气量解读的信心增强(75%,P < 0.001),围绕胸管拔除的决策信心也增强(79%,P < 0.001)。
在当代微创肺切除术和ERAS方案的背景下,使用DCDS可缩短住院时间和胸管留置时间。住院医师对胸管拔除决策信心的增强可能有助于改善结局。