Authors: A. J. Stolz; R. Lischke; J. Šimonek; J. Schützner; P. Pafko Authors‘ workplace: III. chirurgická klinika 1. LF UK a FN Motol, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. P. Pafko, DrSc. Published in: Rozhl. Chir., 2005, roč. 84, č. 11, s. 529-532. Category: Monothematic special - Original
Introduction. Purpose of this prospective study was to compare two types of chest drains - standard bore tubes with new concept of flexible spiral drains.
Methods. From January to March 2005 twenty eight patients after lobectomy or bilobectomy were prospectively randomised. We used two different drains types (flexible spiral – Blake silicon drains, Ethicon) and standard chest drains (Dahlausen GmbH) in all patients. Front drain (diameter 24 Fr) was inserted in the sixth intercostal space anterior axillary line and dorsal one (diameter 28 Fr) in midaxillary line of the sixth intercostal space. Half of the patiens had front drain spiral one and second group had a convetional chest tube. Postoperative variables included: tidaling, bubbling, fluid level and its characteristics, wound infection and technical complications of inserted drains.
Results. Mean daily amount of fluid in front drains was 61 ml in spiral drains vs. 78 ml in standard drains. Spiral drains were removed after median of 3.7 days, vs. 4.4 days in standard chest tube group. Mean daily amount of fluid of dorsal drains group was 220 ml in spiral drains group vs. 213 ml in standard drains. Spirals drains were removed after median of 4.5 days vs. 3.6 days in standard chest tube group. There was no significant difference in technical complications between drains.
Conclusion. Spiral drains are as safe and effective as conventional tubes after lung surgery. Their only present disadvantage is low cost-effectiveness compare to standard bore tubes.
Key words: chest drainage – spiral drains – lung surgery
Don‘t have an account? Create new account
Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.
