This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Silastic drains (SDs) are widely used for postoperative chest drainage. We performed a direct comparison of SDs and conventional single-lumen thoracic catheters (TCs) with similar sizes.
Methods: We performed a historically controlled retrospective study. SDs (24 Fr in size) were used for postoperative drainage from September 2017 to May 2018, and TCs (24 or 28Fr) were used from June 2018 to March 2019. Drainage tubes were maintained with a water seal alone. A comparison was performed of the volume and the speed of fluid until 48 hrs after surgery, the undrained area on chest X-ray, expansion of subcutaneous emphysema, and the duration of drainage.
Results: One hundred fifty-eight patients with SDs and one hundred fifty-five patients with TCs were included. The patient characteristics were equivalent between the groups. The median length of drainage was two days for both groups. The fluid drainage speed was similar between the groups. While the incidence of expansion of subcutaneous emphysema was equivalent for both groups, reinsertion of drainage tubes was more frequent in the SD group due to insufficient air drainage.
Conclusions: SDs and TCs have almost equivalent drainage performances. For patients with a risk of massive air leakage, SDs should be avoided.
Keywords
silastic drain, Blake drain, thoracic catheter, lung resection, postoperative drainage
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 14 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Surgery
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 14 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Surgery
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Silastic drains (SDs) are widely used for postoperative chest drainage. We performed a direct comparison of SDs and conventional single-lumen thoracic catheters (TCs) with similar sizes.
Methods: We performed a historically controlled retrospective study. SDs (24 Fr in size) were used for postoperative drainage from September 2017 to May 2018, and TCs (24 or 28Fr) were used from June 2018 to March 2019. Drainage tubes were maintained with a water seal alone. A comparison was performed of the volume and the speed of fluid until 48 hrs after surgery, the undrained area on chest X-ray, expansion of subcutaneous emphysema, and the duration of drainage.
Results: One hundred fifty-eight patients with SDs and one hundred fifty-five patients with TCs were included. The patient characteristics were equivalent between the groups. The median length of drainage was two days for both groups. The fluid drainage speed was similar between the groups. While the incidence of expansion of subcutaneous emphysema was equivalent for both groups, reinsertion of drainage tubes was more frequent in the SD group due to insufficient air drainage.
Conclusions: SDs and TCs have almost equivalent drainage performances. For patients with a risk of massive air leakage, SDs should be avoided.
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...