Suppr超能文献

胸外科手术后数字式与传统胸腔引流管的临床结局:随机试验的叙述性综述

Clinical outcomes of digital versus traditional chest drains after thoracic surgery: a narrative review of randomised trials.

作者信息

Lim Eric, Blackmon Shanda H, Depypere Lieven, Gonzalez Michel, Mitzman Brian, Stiles Brendan M, Novoa Nuria

机构信息

Imperial College London, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.

Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

出版信息

J Thorac Dis. 2025 Aug 31;17(8):6318-6325. doi: 10.21037/jtd-2025-298. Epub 2025 Aug 25.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines have provided evidence-based standards for the recommended use of digital drains after thoracic surgery. However, results from randomised trials are conflicting regarding the impact of digital drains on clinical outcomes, such as length of hospital stay. This narrative review aims to review evidence-based, high-quality trials to ascertain postoperative outcomes comparing digital with traditional drain systems in adults undergoing thoracic surgery.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted using Narrative Review reporting guidance. An independent researcher interrogated PubMed, Scopus, and Livivo for all original articles published between 2013 and June 2023. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "Thoracic surgery" and specific keywords related to chest drains were used. Articles in English and in humans only were included.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

A total of 3,403 publications were identified, of which 1,251 were duplicates. Of the remaining 2,152, a further 2,137 were excluded, leaving 15 eligible publications for analysis. Most studies presented the primary outcomes of drain duration or length of hospital stay using non-parametric methods, making it impossible to pool the data into a meta-analysis; as such, a narrative review was undertaken. Of the 15 eligible publications, six were considered out of scope for this analysis. Of the remaining nine, one was an interim analysis of another in the list, one was a paediatric study, and two were observational studies. Five studies were randomised trials, which were included in the final analysis. In these five studies, the average length of hospital stay was reduced by one day. However, the statistical significance varied from highly significant (P<0.001) to non-significance (P=0.58) despite the same magnitude of effect (a difference of one day).

CONCLUSIONS

All published randomised trials reported shorter lengths of hospital stay with the use of digital drains. Time-to-event methods are recommended to allow appropriate inferences and certainty estimates for future pooled meta-analyses.

摘要

背景与目的

术后加速康复(ERAS)指南为胸外科手术后推荐使用数字引流装置提供了循证标准。然而,关于数字引流装置对临床结局(如住院时间)的影响,随机试验的结果相互矛盾。本叙述性综述旨在回顾基于证据的高质量试验,以确定在接受胸外科手术的成人中,数字引流系统与传统引流系统相比的术后结局。

方法

采用叙述性综述报告指南进行叙述性文献综述。一名独立研究人员在PubMed、Scopus和Livivo数据库中检索2013年至2023年6月发表的所有原创文章。使用医学主题词(MeSH)“胸外科手术”以及与胸腔引流相关的特定关键词。仅纳入英文且针对人类的文章。

关键内容与发现

共识别出3403篇出版物,其中1251篇为重复文献。在其余的2152篇中,又排除了2137篇,剩下15篇符合条件的出版物进行分析。大多数研究使用非参数方法呈现引流持续时间或住院时间的主要结局,这使得无法将数据汇总进行荟萃分析;因此,进行了叙述性综述。在15篇符合条件的出版物中,6篇被认为超出了本分析的范围。在其余9篇中,1篇是列表中另一项研究的中期分析,1篇是儿科研究,2篇是观察性研究。5项研究为随机试验,被纳入最终分析。在这5项研究中,平均住院时间缩短了1天。然而,尽管效应量相同(相差1天),但统计学显著性从高度显著(P<0.001)到不显著(P=0.58)不等。

结论

所有已发表的随机试验均报告使用数字引流装置可缩短住院时间。建议采用事件发生时间方法,以便为未来的汇总荟萃分析进行适当的推断和确定性估计。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2a4f/12433118/9ec7011ba991/jtd-17-08-6318-f1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验