A Retrospective Analysis on Level of Suction in Digital Drainage Devices After Video-assisted Lobectomy in a Thoracic Surgery Centre

Authors

  • Anita Paiva Cardiothoracic Department, Local Health Unit of São João, Porto, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1595-7166
  • Nuno Barros Ferreira Pulmonology Department, Local Health Unit of Tâmega e Sousa, Penafiel, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7678-8672
  • Ana Santos Cardoso Cardiothoracic Department, Local Health Unit of São João, Porto, Portugal
  • João Serra Cardiothoracic Department, Local Health Unit of São João, Porto, Portugal
  • Rita Costa Cardiothoracic Department, Local Health Unit of São João, Porto, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7831-8711
  • Carlos Pinto Cardiothoracic Department, Local Health Unit of São João, Porto, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4231-6102
  • Pedro Fernandes Cardiothoracic Department, Local Health Unit of São João, Porto, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8655-106X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48729/pjctvs.607

Keywords:

Pleural drainage, Suction level, Chest tubes, VATS lobectomy, Prolonged air leak

Abstract

Introduction: The management of chest tubes after pulmonary resection remains non- standardized, and suction levels are often determined by the surgeon's preference. This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of low suction −2cmH2O−2cmH2​O versus the conventional suction level used in our institution −15cmH2O−15cmH2​O using digital drainage devices after videoassisted thoracic surgery (VATS) lobectomy for suspected or confirmed lung cancer in a thoracic surgery centre.

Methods: We analysed 120 patients who underwent pleural drainage after VATS lobectomy between January 2023 and September 2024. The primary outcome was drainage duration. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay, prolonged air leak, complications, and readmissions.

Results: No significant differences were observed in drainage duration (2.0 vs. 4.0 days; p=0.125p=0.125) or hospital stay (3.0 vs. 4.0 days; p=0.104p=0.104 ). The incidence of prolonged air leak was similar between groups (20.3% vs. 24.6%; p=0.578p=0.578 ). However, subcutaneous emphysema occurred more frequently in the low suction group (22% vs. 8.2%; p=0.04p=0.04 ), with a higher need for intervention, despite comparable baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) values between suction level groups. Importantly, patients who developed subcutaneous emphysema had significantly lower baseline FEV1 values, regardless of suction level. COPD was identified as a significant predictor of longer drainage duration, longer hospital stay, and higher complication rates.

Conclusion: Although suction level did not significantly influence postoperative recovery, the higher incidence of subcutaneous emphysema in the low suction group warrants further investigation. The presence of COPD and impaired baseline lung function should be considered when selecting suction levels after VATS lobectomy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Lang P, Manickavasagar M, Burdett C, Treasure T, Fiorentino F et al. Suction on chest drains following lung resection: evidence and practice are not aligned. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49(2):611-616. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezv133.

Holbek BL, Christensen M, Hansen HJ, Kehlet H, Petersen RH. The effects of low suction on digital drainage devices after lobectomy using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;55(4):673-681. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezv361.

Erdogu V, Akin H, Sonmezoglu Y, Kutluk AC, Sezen CB, Dogru MV, et al. Comparison of the video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open thoracotomy for primary non-small cell lung cancer: single cohort study with 269 cases. Med Bull Sisli Etfal Hosp. 2020;54(3):291-296. doi:10.14744/SEMB.2020.60963.

Alphonso N, Tan C, Utley M, Cameron R, Dussek J et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of suction versus non-suction to the under-water seal drains following lung resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27(3):391-394. doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.12.004.

Brunelli A, Monteverde M, Borri A, Salati M, Marasco RD et al. Comparison of water seal and suction after pulmonary lobectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77(6):1932-1937. doi:10.1016/j.athorac-sur.2003.12.022.

Marshall MB, Deeb ME, Bleier JIS, Kucharczuk JC, Friedberg JS et al. Suction vs water seal after pulmonary resection: a randomized prospective study. Chest. 2002;121(3):831-835. doi:10.1378/chest.121.3.831.

Ayed AK. Suction versus water seal after thoracoscopy for primary spontaneous pneumothorax: prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75(5):1593-1596. doi:10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04894-4.

Cerfolio RJ, Bass C, Katholi CR. Prospective randomized trial compares suction versus water seal for air leaks. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71(5):1613-1617. doi:10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02474-2.

Gao S, Zhang Z, Aragon J, Brunelli A, Cassivi S et al. The Society for Translational Medicine: clinical practice guidelines for the postoperative management of chest tube for patients undergoing lobectomy. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(9):3255-3264. doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.08.165.

Brunelli A, Salati M, Pompili C, Refai M, Sabbatini A. Regulated tailored suction vs regulated seal: a prospective randomized trial on air leak duration. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;43(5):899-904. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezs518.

Downloads

Published

10-05-2026

How to Cite

1.
Paiva A, Barros Ferreira N, Santos Cardoso A, Serra J, Costa R, Pinto C, et al. A Retrospective Analysis on Level of Suction in Digital Drainage Devices After Video-assisted Lobectomy in a Thoracic Surgery Centre. Rev Port Cir Cardiotorac Vasc [Internet]. 2026 May 10 [cited 2026 May 11];33(1):19-23. Available from: https://pjctvs.com/index.php/journal/article/view/607

Issue

Section

Original Articles

Categories

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >> 

Similar Articles

<< < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.