Comparison between use of a pleural drainage system with flutter valve and a conventional water-seal drainage system after lung resection: a randomized prospective study
Keywords:
Pleural cavity, Thoracic surgical procedures, Lung, Pleural effusion, Postoperative period, Time in hospitalAbstract
BACKGROUND: There is still a debate regarding the most appropriate pleural collector model to ensure a short hospital stay and minimum complications. OBJECTIVE: To study aimed to compare the time of air leak, time to drain removal, and length of hospital
stay between a standard water-seal drainage system and a pleural collector system with a unidirectional flutter valve and rigid chamber.
DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized prospective clinical trial was conducted at a high-complexity hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.
METHODS: Sixty-three patients who underwent open or video-assisted thoracoscopic lung wedge resection or lobectomy were randomized into two groups, according to the drainage system used: the control group (WS), which used a conventional water-seal pleural collector, and the study group (V), which used a flutter valve device (Sinapi® Model XL1000®). Variables related to the drainage system, time of air leak, time to drain removal, and time spent in hospital were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Most patients (63%) had lung cancer. No differences were observed between the groups in the time of air leak or time spent hospitalized. The time to drain removal was slightly shorter in the V group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Seven patients presented with surgery-related complications: five and two in the WS and V groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Air leak, time to drain removal, and time spent in the hospital were similar between the groups. The system used in the V group resulted in no adverse events and was safe. REGISTRATION: RBR-85qq6jc (https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-85qq6jc).
Downloads
References
Satoh Y. Management of chest drainage tubes after lung surgery. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;64(6):305-8. PMID: 27048219; https://doi. org/10.1007/s11748-016-0646-z.
Meyer JA. Gotthard Bülau and closed water-seal drainage for empyema, 1875-1891. Ann Thorac Surg. 1989;48(4):597-9. PMID: 2679468; https:// doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(10)66876-2.
Heimlich HJ. Valve drainage of the pleural cavity. Dis Chest. 1968;53(3):282-7. PMID: 5640897; https://doi.org/10.1378/ chest.53.3.282.
Kam AC, O’Brien M, Kam PC. Pleural drainage systems. Anaesthesia. 1993;48(2):154-61. PMID: 8460765; https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb06859.x.
McKenna RJ Jr, Fischel RJ, Brenner M, Gelb AF. Use of the Heimlich valve to shorten hospital stay after lung reduction surgery for emphysema. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61(4):1115-7. PMID: 8607667; https://doi. org/10.1016/0003-4975(96)00034-3.
Waller DA, Edwards JG, Rajesh PB. A physiological comparison of flutter valve drainage bags and underwater seal systems for postoperative air leaks. Thorax. 1999;54(5):442-3. PMID: 10212112; https://doi.org/10.1136/ thx.54.5.442.
Cooper C, Hardcastle T. Xpand chest drain: assessing equivalence to current standard therapy--a randomised controlled trial. S Afr J Surg. 2006;44(4):131-5. PMID: 17330628.
Vuorisalo S, Aarnio P, Hannukainen J. Comparison between flutter valve drainage bag and underwater seal device for pleural drainage after lung surgery. Scand J Surg. 2005;94(1):56-8. PMID: 15865119; https:// doi.org/10.1177/145749690509400114.
Wu MH, Wu HY. Pleural drainage using drainage bag for thoracoscopic lobectomy. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2018;26(3):212-7. PMID: 29448831; https://doi.org/10.1177/0218492318760876.
Vuorisalo S, Hannukainen J, Aarnio P. Flutter valve drainage bag is a useful device for the pleural drainage. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 2001;90(4):294-6. PMID: 11820420.
Galbois A, Ait-Oufella H, Baudel JL, et al. Pleural ultrasound compared with chest radiographic detection of pneumothorax resolution after drainage. Chest. 2010;138(3):648-55. PMID: 20382717; https://doi. org/10.1378/chest.09-2224.
Hashmi U, Nadeem M, Aleem A, et al. Dysfunctional Closed Chest Drainage - Common Causative Factors and Recommendations for Prevention. Cureus. 2018;10(3):e2295. PMID: 29750136; https://doi. org/10.7759/cureus.2295.
Talpur AA, Khaskheli AB, Hashmi SF, Jamal A. Analysis of 200 cases of tubethoracostomies performed by general surgeons. JLUMHS. 2014;13(1):22-6. Available from: https://www.lumhs.edu.pk/jlumhs/ Vol13No01/pdfs/6.pdf. Accessed in 2023 (Sept. 5).
Lodi R, Stefani A. A new portable chest drainage device. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69(4):998-1001. PMID: 10800782; https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0003-4975(99)01567-2.
Paul AO, Kirchhoff C, Kay MV, et al. Malfunction of a Heimlich flutter valve causing tension pneumothorax: case report of a rare complication. Patient Saf Surg. 2010;4(1):8. PMID: 20565768; https:// doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-4-8.
Vega NA, Ortega HA, Tincani AJ, Toro IF. Use of a one-way flutter valve drainage system in the postoperative period following lung resection. J Bras Pneumol. 2008;34(8):559-66. PMID: 18797739; https:// doi.org/10.1590/s1806-37132008000800004.
Chang PC, Chen KH, Jhou HJ, et al. Promising Effects of Digital Chest Tube Drainage System for Pulmonary Resection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. J Pers Med. 2022;12(4):512. PMID: 35455628; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12040512.
Peng S, Huang L, Zhao B, et al. Clinical course of coronavirus disease 2019 in 11 patients after thoracic surgery and challenges in diagnosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;160(2):585-92. PMID: 32414594; https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.04.005.
Gomes WJ, Rocco I, Pimentel WS, et al. COVID-19 in the Perioperative Period of Cardiovascular Surgery: the Brazilian Experience. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;36(6):725-35. PMID: 34882365; https://doi. org/10.21470/1678-9741-2021-0960.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 São Paulo Medical Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
