BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of suction with water seal, compared with water seal alone, applied to intra pleural chest tubes on the duration of air leaks in patients undergoing pulmonary surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of the 2 methods on the duration of air leaks. Trials were systematically assessed for eligibility and validity. Data were extracted in duplicate and pooled across studies using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The search yielded 7 RCTs that met the eligibility criteria. No difference was identified between the 2 methods in duration of air leak (weighted mean difference [WMD] 1.15 days, favours water seal; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.64 to 2.94), time to discharge (WMD 2.19 d, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.63 to 5.01), duration of chest tubes (WMD 0.96 d, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.12 to 2.05) or incidence of prolonged air leaks (absolute risk reduction [ARR] 0.04, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09). Water seal was associated with a significantly increased incidence of postoperative pneumothorax (ARR -0.14, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07). CONCLUSION: No differences were identified in terms of duration of air leak, incidence of prolonged air leak, duration of chest tubes and duration of hospital stay when chest tubes were placed to suction rather than water seal. Chest tube suction appears to be superior to water seal in reducing the incidence of pneumothorax; however, the clinical significance of this finding is unclear.
BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of suction with water seal, compared with water seal alone, applied to intra pleural chest tubes on the duration of air leaks in patients undergoing pulmonary surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of the 2 methods on the duration of air leaks. Trials were systematically assessed for eligibility and validity. Data were extracted in duplicate and pooled across studies using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The search yielded 7 RCTs that met the eligibility criteria. No difference was identified between the 2 methods in duration of air leak (weighted mean difference [WMD] 1.15 days, favours water seal; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.64 to 2.94), time to discharge (WMD 2.19 d, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.63 to 5.01), duration of chest tubes (WMD 0.96 d, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.12 to 2.05) or incidence of prolonged air leaks (absolute risk reduction [ARR] 0.04, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09). Water seal was associated with a significantly increased incidence of postoperative pneumothorax (ARR -0.14, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07). CONCLUSION: No differences were identified in terms of duration of air leak, incidence of prolonged air leak, duration of chest tubes and duration of hospital stay when chest tubes were placed to suction rather than water seal. Chest tube suction appears to be superior to water seal in reducing the incidence of pneumothorax; however, the clinical significance of this finding is unclear.
Authors: David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-06-19
Authors: Gordon Guyatt; David Gutterman; Michael H Baumann; Doreen Addrizzo-Harris; Elaine M Hylek; Barbara Phillips; Gary Raskob; Sandra Zelman Lewis; Holger Schünemann Journal: Chest Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn Vist; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Victor Montori; Elie A Akl; Ben Djulbegovic; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Susan L Norris; John W Williams; David Atkins; Joerg Meerpohl; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: M Blair Marshall; Maher E Deeb; Joshua I S Bleier; John C Kucharczuk; Joseph S Friedberg; Larry R Kaiser; Joseph B Shrager Journal: Chest Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jacob A Kanter; Haiying Sun; Stephen Chiu; Malcolm M DeCamp; Peter H S Sporn; Jacob I Sznajder; Ankit Bharat Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Daniel G French; Michael Dilena; Simon LaPlante; Farid Shamji; Sudhir Sundaresan; James Villeneuve; Andrew Seely; Donna Maziak; Sebastien Gilbert Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.895