IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0068087.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

External Suction versus Water Seal after Selective Pulmonary Resection for Lung Neoplasm: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Tong Qiu
  • Yi Shen
  • Ming-zhao Wang
  • Yao-peng Wang
  • Dong Wang
  • Zi-zong Wang
  • Xiang-feng Jin
  • Yu-cheng Wei

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether external suction is more advantageous than water seal in patients undergoing selective pulmonary resection (SPR) for lung neoplasm. Summary of Background Data: Whether external suction should be routinely applied in postoperative chest drainage is still unclear, particularly for lung neoplasm patients. To most surgeons, the decision is based on their clinical experience. Methods: Randomized control trials were selected. The participants were patients undergoing SPR with lung neoplasm. Lung volume reduction surgery and pneumothorax were excluded. Suction versus non-suction for the intervention. The primary outcome was the incidence of persistent air leak (PAL). The definition of PAL was air leak for more than 3–7 days. The secondary outcomes included air leak duration, time of drainage, postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative pneumothorax. Studies were identified from literature collections through screening. Bias was analyzed and meta-analysis was used. Results: From the 1824 potentially relevant trials, 6 randomized control trials involving 676 patients were included. There was no difference between external suction and water seal in decreasing the incidence of PAL [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81−2.16; z = 1.10; P = 0.27]. Regarding secondary outcomes, there were no differences in time of drainage (95% CI−0.36−1.56, P = 0.22), postoperative hospital stay (95% CI -.31−.54, P = 0.87) or incidence of postoperative pneumothorax (95% CI 0.18−.02, P = 0.05) between external suction and water seal. Conclusions: For participants, no differences are identified in terms of PAL incidence, drainage time, length of postoperative hospital stay or incidence of postoperative pneumothorax between external suction and water seal. The bias analysis should be emphasized. To the limitations of the bias and methodological differences among the included studies, we have no recommendation on whether external suction should be routinely applied after lung neoplasm SPR. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed. Systematic Review Registration: None.

Suggested Citation

  • Tong Qiu & Yi Shen & Ming-zhao Wang & Yao-peng Wang & Dong Wang & Zi-zong Wang & Xiang-feng Jin & Yu-cheng Wei, 2013. "External Suction versus Water Seal after Selective Pulmonary Resection for Lung Neoplasm: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-7, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0068087
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068087
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068087&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0068087?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0068087. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.