European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Advance Access published January 20, 2015

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (2015) 1–7 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu535

Cite this article as: Lijkendijk M, Licht PB, Neckelmann K. Electronic versus traditional chest tube drainage following lobectomy: a randomized trial. Eur J
Cardiothorac Surg 2015; doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu535.

Electronic versus traditional chest tube drainage following

THORACIC
lobectomy: a randomized trial†
Marike Lijkendijk*, Peter B. Licht and Kirsten Neckelmann
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

* Corresponding author. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, 29 Sdr. Boulevard, 5000 Odense, Denmark. Tel: +45-2498-8031;
fax: +45-6591-6935; e-mail: elle.lijkendijk@rsyd.dk (M. Lijkendijk).

Received 14 September 2014; received in revised form 4 December 2014; accepted 5 December 2014

Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Electronic drainage systems have shown superiority compared with traditional (water seal) drainage systems following lung
resections, but the number of studies is limited. As part of a medico-technical evaluation, before change of practice to electronic drainage
systems for routine thoracic surgery, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating chest tube duration and length of
hospitalization.
METHODS: Patients undergoing lobectomy were included in a prospective open label RCT. A strict algorithm was designed for early chest
tube removal, and this decision was delegated to staff nurses. Data were analysed by Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusting
for lung function, gender, age, BMI, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) or open surgery and presence of incomplete fissure or pleural
adhesions. Time was distinguished as possible (optimal) and actual time for chest tube removal, as well as length of hospitalization.
RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were randomized. We found no significant difference between the electronic group and traditional group
in optimal chest tube duration (HR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55–1.25; P = 0.367), actual chest tube duration (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.55–1.26; P = 0.397)
or length of hospital stay (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.59–1.39; P = 0.651). No chest tubes had to be reinserted. Presence of pleural adhesions or
an incomplete fissure was a significant predictor of chest tube duration (HR = 1.72; 95% CI: 1.15–2.77; P = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS: Electronic drainage systems did not reduce chest tube duration or length of hospitalization significantly compared with
traditional water seal drainage when a strict algorithm for chest tube removal was used. This algorithm allowed delegation of chest tube
removal to staff nurses, and in some patients chest tubes could be removed safely on the day of surgery.
Keywords: Air leak • Chest tube • Electronic pleural drainage system • Pulmonary lobectomy • Fast-track surgery • Postoperative
management

INTRODUCTION electronic with traditional chest tube drainage [3–7]. In addition,

Chest tubes are used to evacuate air and fluids following lung
resections, and can be used to monitor when drainage of the chest
cavity is sufficient. Until recently, this field has been managed from
a traditional paradigm or empirical evidence [1]. A number of
factors influence the duration of treatment with chest tubes, one of
these being the clinical decision per se to remove the chest tube,
which has been shown to have interobserver variability [2].
Electronic drainage systems have shown increased agreement
rate concerning clinical decision making regarding chest tube
removal [2]. Besides adding objectivity to the clinical decision of
chest tube removal, electronic drainage systems have shown super-
iority to traditional drainage systems in a limited number of studies.
At present, there are five prospective randomized trials comparing
†
Presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Cardio-
Thoracic Surgery, Milan, Italy, 11–15 October 2014.
there are observational studies [8, 9]. Most studies included various
types of lung resections, and used algorithms with external suction
in both groups of varied length and strength [2, 3, 6–11].
In our institution, we routinely use traditional water seal chest
drainage without external suction to facilitate early mobilization
postoperatively. Until the advancement of an electronic drainage
system that allowed mobilization with the device, it was not pos-
sible to apply suction without immobilizing patients to the extent of
the suction tube. So far, studies evaluating suction versus water seal
have not collectively given clear-cut recommendations on how to
manage chest tubes following lung resections [12–15]. With the
advent of the electronic drainage system, we wanted to test this
system versus our routine drainage system, where both study
groups had equal opportunity to mobilize early postoperatively. In
addition, because of ever increasing demands to reduce costs, hos-
pital stay and document quality in patient care, we decided to
conduct a randomized controlled trial as part of a medico-technical

© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.
2 M. Lijkendijk et al. / European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
evaluation before adopting electronic drainage systems as a routine
following thoracic surgery.
METHODS
The present study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee
and the Danish Data Protection Agency. The study was powered to
detect a difference in length of hospitalization of a least 1 day
because a shorter hospital stay would reduce costs. Eligible for
inclusion were all patients admitted for lobectomy by thoracotomy
or video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), age older than 18 years
and who were able to read and understand the information regard-
ing the study.
Exclusion criteria were as follows: previous history of pulmonary
or cardiac surgery, expected difficulties with postoperative mobil-
ization, patients not able to co-operate with a lung physiotherap-
ist, participation in concomitant studies or trial in the department,
where a different drainage protocol could influence results,
postoperative mechanical ventilation, the insertion of more than
one chest tube perioperative and finally bilobectomy or middle
lobectomy.
Patients were enrolled into the study by the thoracic surgeons 1
day prior to surgery, when being examined and evaluated for
surgery. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.
Data collection included the following: age, gender, BMI, forced
expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), type of surgery, state of the
inter-lobar fissure, pleural adhesions, postoperative pain score
(VAS) with regard to chest tube removal and air leakage three
times every day until chest tube removal. Study endpoints were as
follows: time of optimal chest tube removal —meaning when it
was possible according to the criteria of removal, time of actual
chest tube removal—meaning when it was actually removed and
length of stay (LOS) in hospital, which was the primary outcome.
Complications such as need for chest tube reinsertion, need of
Figure 1: The two drainage systems used. The Thopaz system by Medela to the left and the Thora-Seal system by Covidien to the right.
pleurocentesis within 30 days, development of pleural empyema
within 30 days and any need of antibiotic treatment for post-
operative pneumonia were also registered.
A standard chest tube (Ch. 24) was placed routinely at the end of
the lobectomy procedures. Following surgery, while still on the op-
erating table, patients were randomized to receive intervention with
either an electronic drainage system, Thopaz® (Medela AG, Baar,
Switzerland) or a traditional drainage system, Thora-Seal® (Covidien,
Mansfield, MA, USA) (Fig. 1). Randomization was done by use of
sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes managed by the
research unit of the department. Once the surgeon determined that
there were no intraoperative exclusion criteria present (i.e. need of
two chest tubes or bilobectomy), the sealed envelope was opened
by the research unit, and read to the surgeon at the end of surgery.
Intervention by electronic drainage also included continuous
suction effect of −15 cm H2O whereas traditional drainage by a
single chamber 370 ml water seal used simple gravity without a
possibility of applying external suction. The large water seal is
used routinely in the department to prevent reverse air flow [16].
All the patients subsequently followed our routine postoperative
observation regimen and pain management, and they were mobi-
lized on the same day of surgery. Chest tubes were removed using
the following strict algorithm: In the electronic group, the chest
tube was considered eligible for removal when air leakage had
ceased to ≤20 ml/min for 6 consecutive hours or ≤50 ml/min for 12
consecutive hours without any visible spikes on the digital display
[17], and always in a fully mobilized patient with no or just minor
pain (VAS-level 2–3 on a 10-point scale).
In the traditional group, the chest tube was considered eligible
for removal when no air bubble was visible in the water seal
during coughing on a fully mobilized patient with no or just minor
pain (VAS-level 2–3 on a 10-point scale).
In both groups, the earliest time allowed for removal was 6 h
postoperatively, and for this it was also required that fluid produc-
tion was serous with a total volume of <200 ml on the day of
 M. Lijkendijk et al. / European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
surgery or <400 ml on the following day, as this is our routine
management.
The study was open labelled as blinding was impossible with
two different drainage systems (Fig. 1). Once the chest tubes were
removed, surgeons and staff nurses were typically unaware of
which chest tube drainage system had been used. This informa-
tion was not blinded, but our staff would have to actively seek this
information going back in the electronic medical charts.
Chest tubes were observed at least once in every work shift by
the staff nurses (three shifts of 8 h each per 24 h), and the decision
of chest tube removal was delegated to the clinical staff nurse
in charge of the patient. Chest X-rays were routinely obtained
2 hours after removal of the chest tube and again 10–14 days
following surgery in our outpatient clinic.
Statistical analysis consisted of Cox proportional hazard regres-
sion analysis adjusting for FEV1 (categorized as <70, 70–90, >90%),
gender, age (categorized as <60, 60–70, >70 years), BMI (categor-
ized as <25, 25–30, >30), surgical approach (VATS or open surgery)
and presence of pleural adhesions and/or incomplete inter-lobar
fissures. Time was distinguished as possible (optimal) and actual
Figure 2: Flow diagram of the trial according to CONSORT [18].
3
time for chest tube removal, as well as length of hospitalization.
Statistical significance was determined as P < 0.05. A χ 2 test,
Shapiro–Wilks test for normality and Student’s t-test for baseline
variables were also used to compare the two groups. IBM’s SPSS
21.0 was used to perform statistical analysis. Nomenclature used
in this paper is in accordance with the consensus definitions [1].
THORACIC
RESULTS
A total of 338 lobectomies were performed between January 2012
and August 2013. Of these, 86 patients participated in other re-
search studies, and were consequently excluded. Another 147
were either not assessed for inclusion because of oversight or did
not meet the inclusion criteria. No patient that was asked to par-
ticipate refused, and this left 105 patients for randomization. A
flow diagram of the study is illustrated in Fig. 2. Baseline variables
were similar between the two groups with no significant differ-
ences as given in Table 1.
4 M. Lijkendijk et al. / European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Table 1: Comparison of preoperative and operative

factors in the study groups

Variables Electronic Traditional P-value

(n = 55) (n = 50)

Agea 69.5 (48–87) 67 (46–85) 0.099

Gender (male/female) 21/34 18/32 0.815
FEV1% 82.8 (16.4) 84.4 (16.9) 0.629
BMI 26.0 (4.1) 24.8 (5.1) 0.228
Surgery (n = VATS/thoracotomy) 25/30 16/34 0.158
Incomplete fissure or 58 54 0.850
adhesions (%)
Lobes removed
LUL 20 19 0.925
LLL 11 8
RUL 11 12
RLL 13 11

Figure 4: Cox regression curve showing actual chest tube duration (the time
LUL: left upper lobe; LLL: left lower lobe; RUL: right upper lobe; RLL: when the chest tube was actually removed).
right lower lobe.
a
Age shown as median and range. Other continuous variables
expressed as mean with standard deviation in parenthesis. P-values
from Student’s t-test on continuous variables or χ 2 on categorical
variables.

Figure 5: Cox regression curve showing length of hospital stay (days from oper-
ation to discharge).

per-protocol without the 5 patients mentioned, and found no

Figure 3: Cox regression curve showing optimal chest tube duration (the time
when the algorithm for chest tube removal was fulfilled).
We found no significant difference between the electronic group
and traditional group in optimal chest tube duration on intention-
to-treat basis (HR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55–1.25; P = 0.367) (Fig. 3), actual
chest tube duration (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.55–1.26; P = 0.397) (Fig. 4)
or length of hospital stay (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.59–1.39; P = 0.651)
(Fig. 5). The presence of pleural adhesions or an incomplete fissure
was a significant predictor of chest tube duration (HR = 1.72; 95%
CI: 1.12–2.65; P = 0.014), but surgical approach was not (HR = 0.95;
95% CI: 0.61–1.48; P = 0.826).
The protocol was violated in four instances in the electronic
group by switching drainage system. Another patient was an
outlier with a 35-day hospitalization resulting from a complicated
postoperative course following resection of a large completely
necrotic tumour occupying the entire lobe, which was removed in
a contaminated chest cavity. We decided to perform the analysis
significant difference between the electronic group and traditional
group in optimal chest tube duration (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.52–
1.22; P = 0.297), actual chest tube duration (HR = 0.80; 95% CI:
0.52–1.22; P = 0.301) or length of hospital stay (HR = 0.71; 95% CI:
0.46–1.11; P = 0.137). FEV1 (HR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.20–0.84, P =
0.049) and the presence of pleural adhesions or an incomplete
fissure (HR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.03–2.46, P = 0.036) were both signifi-
cant predictors of chest tube duration. Medians and IQR’s for the
groups are given in Table 2.
Removal of six chest tubes was postponed on the basis of fluid
production >400 ml.
Six chest tubes (five in the electronic group and one in the trad-
itional group) were removed safely on the same day of surgery,
with no need for reinsertion of chest tubes. According to our
algorithm, 15 chest tubes could have been removed on Day 0.
However, most chest tubes were removed in close proximity to
the morning rounds as shown graphically in Fig. 6. All chest tubes
were removed prior to discharge, and all patients discharged to
their homes.
 M. Lijkendijk et al. / European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
Table 2: Descriptive numeral comparison of endpoints
between the two groups
Endpoints
Intention-to-treat Electronic (n = 55) Traditional (n = 50)
Optimal chest tube durationa 27 (18–57) 43.5 (21–66)
Chest tube duration 41 (22–68) 46.5 (24–70)
Length of stay 4 (3–6) 5 (3–6)
Per-protocol Electronic (n = 50) Traditional (n = 50)
Optimal chest tube durationa 25 (16–56) 43.5 (21–66)
Chest tube duration 42 (22–68) 46.5 (24–70)
Length of stay 4 (3–5) 5 (3–6)
Results are shown descriptively as median in hours (chest tube
duration) with IQR in parenthesis and median in days (length of stay).
a
The time when the algorithm for chest tube removal was fulfilled.
Figure 6: Illustration of chest tube removal in close proximity to morning
rounds Day 1—19–24 h after surgery, Day 2—43–48 h after surgery and Day 3—
67–72 h after surgery.
DISCUSSION
This study found no significant difference on the overall chest
tube duration and LOS between the electronic drainage system
and the traditional water seal drainage, and therefore our results
differ from the majority of published literature comparing elec-
tronic drainage with traditional water seal drainage.
Previous studies showed significant reduction in both chest
tube duration and LOS in favour of electronic drainage systems
[5, 7, 19], and other studies have shown significant reduction in
chest tube duration and tendencies in shorter hospital stay favour-
ing electronic drainage systems [6, 10]. Studies comparing elec-
tronic drainage with traditional drainage showed chest tube
durations of 2.5 days in the electronic group vs 4.4 in the traditional
group [19], 4 vs 4.9 days [5] and 3.1 vs 3.9 days [6]. In our study, the
mean chest tube duration was 1.9 days in the electronic group vs
2.2 in the traditional group. One reason for the shorter chest tube
duration in the traditional group could be our strict algorithm for
removal, as they were observed and evaluated for removal three
times every day just as the electronic group. Otherwise, one could
expect that the traditional chest tubes would be left in the patients
for a longer period of time even though it would be possible from a
clinical point of view to remove them. If previous studies did not
have the same considerations/algorithm for chest tube removal in
the traditional group, this could contribute to explain why they
found a difference between drainage systems. In our study, the
5
mean LOS was approximately 5 days in both groups, which is com-
patible with findings in other studies [5, 7].
The finding that incomplete fissures, adhesions and lung func-
tion (FEV1) were all significant predictors of chest tube duration
confirms what has already been reported previously [20, 21].
When we decided to introduce and test the electronic drainage
THORACIC
system in our department, it was important for us to use a simple
algorithm and instructions for chest tube removal, first of all to
minimize variation in clinical judgement of chest tube removal,
but also because it would be easy to delegate this decision to our
staff nurses without having to consult the surgeon on duty. Our
study confirms that the decision to remove chest tubes can be
successfully delegated to the staff nurse in care of newly operated
lung cancer patients.
Even though the electronic drainage system device was used rou-
tinely in our ward before initiation of this trial, our data might still
have been influenced by a learning curve, as we noticed that even
experienced surgeons switched the drainage system within the
electronic group in 4 cases because of uncertainty in the interpret-
ation of the system and the data displayed. These misunderstand-
ings, however, did not influence our results, as the conclusion
remained the same when data were analysed according to the in-
tention-to-treat and per-protocol principles. In addition, one previ-
ous study showed an effect of the electronic device despite a
learning curve [19]. We also discovered that many of the chest tubes
were removed in close proximity to morning rounds (Fig. 6), which
could reflect that staff nurses were not comfortable making the de-
cision to remove a chest tube despite our algorithm or that it was
simply daytime when most staff were present.
One of our contraindications for chest tube removal was fluid
production of more than 400 ml, which postponed chest tube
removal in 6 patients. The clinical significance of higher serous
fluid production was recently studied by Bjerregaard et al. [22]
who demonstrated that even with a serous fluid production of
500 ml, chest tubes could be removed safely following VATS lob-
ectomies, but this information was not available to us at the time
we designed the protocol.
The present study has limitations. Most apparent is the fact that
the intervention was not blinded to the patients and staff in the
ward. Also, the intervention in the electronic drainage system
group did in fact consist of two simultaneous interventions com-
pared with the control group with a traditional drainage system,
namely that it was electronic and at the same time applied
suction. As emphasized in the introduction, our routine is to facili-
tate early mobilization in all patients, and this would not have
been possible if we applied external suction to our traditional
drainage system. On the basis of this, there could be statistical
interactions that we cannot account for. It may also be argued that
because of the limited sample size, we may have overlooked a dif-
ference between the two drainage systems, which was less than 1
day, but the study was powered to detect a difference in length of
hospitalization of a least 1 day because this was considered to be
a clinically relevant difference for the patient as a shorter hospital
stay would reduce costs.
In striving to minimize hospital stay and reduce costs, our ex-
perience with a strict algorithm for chest tube removal could be a
valuable way forward for others regardless of choice of drainage
system. However, the fact that there was no difference in LOS
between the electronic drainage system used and traditional
drainage by water seal suggests that factors besides chest tube
duration need attention as well to facilitate fast-track thoracic
surgery.
6 M. Lijkendijk et al. / European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
In conclusion, this study found no significant difference in chest
tube duration or length of hospitalization, but the electronic
device facilitated delegation of chest tube removal to the staff
nurses, because it could be evaluated objectively, and because
clear algorithms for removal were defined.
Conflict of interest: none declared.
REFERENCES
[1] Brunelli A, Beretta E, Cassivi SD, Cerfolio RJ, Detterbeck F, Kiefer T et al.
Consensus definitions to promote an evidence-based approach to man-
agement of the pleural space. A collaborative proposal by ESTS, AATS, STS,
and GTSC. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;40:291–7.
[2] Varela G, Jimenez M, Novoa N, Aranda J. Postoperative chest tube man-
agement: measuring air leak using an electronic device decreases variabil-
ity in the clinical practice. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009;35:28–31.
[3] Bertolaccini L, Rizzardi G, Filice MJ, Terzi A. ‘Six sigma approach’—an ob-
jective strategy in digital assessment of postoperative air leaks: a prospect-
ive randomised study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;39:e128–32.
[4] Filosso PL, Ruffini E, Solidoro P, Molinatti M, Bruna MC, Oliaro A. Digital
air leak monitoring after lobectomy for primary lung cancer in patients
with moderate COPD: can a fast-tracking algorithm reduce postoperative
costs and complications? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2010;51:429–33.
[5] Brunelli A, Salati M, Refai M, Di Nunzio L, Xiume F, Sabbatini A. Evaluation
of a new chest tube removal protocol using digital air leak monitoring
after lobectomy: a prospective randomised trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
2010;37:56–60.
[6] Cerfolio R, Bryant A. The benefits of continuous and digital air leak assess-
ment after elective pulmonary resection: a prospective study. Ann Thorac
Surg 2008;86:396–401.
[7] Pompili C, Detterbeck F, Papagiannopoulos K, Sihoe A, Vachlas K,
Maxfield MW et al. Multicenter international randomized comparison of
objective and subjective outcomes between electronic and traditional
chest drainage systems. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;98:490–7.
[8] Mier JM, Molins L, Fibla JJ. The benefits of digital air leak assessment after
pulmonary resection: prospective and comparative study. Cir Esp 2010;87:
385–9.
[9] Anegg U, Lindenmann J, Matzi V, Mujkic D, Maier A, Fritz L et al. AIRFIX:
the first digital postoperative chest tube airflowmetry—a novel method to
quantify air leakage after lung resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:
867–72.
[10] Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS. Quantification of postoperative airleaks. MMCTS
2009. doi: 10.1510/mmcts.2007.003129.
[11] Afoke J, Tan C, Hunt I, Zakkar M. Might digital drains speed up the time to
thoracic drain removal? Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2014;19:135–8.
[12] Coughlin SM, Emmerton-Coughlin HM, Malthaner R. Management of
chest tubes after pulmonary resection: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Can J Surg 2012;55:264–70.
[13] Deng B, Tan QY, Zhao YP, Wang RW, Jiang YG. Suction or non-suction to
the underwater seal drains following pulmonary operation: meta-
analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010;38:
210–5.
[14] Qiu T, Shen Y, Wang MZ, Wang YP, Wang D, Wang ZZ et al. External
suction versus water seal after selective pulmonary resection for lung neo-
plasm: a systematic review. PLoS One 2013;8:e68087.
[15] Sanni A, Critchley A, Dunning J. Should chest drains be put on suction or
not following pulmonary lobectomy? Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg
2006;5:275–8.
[16] Stouby A, Neckelmann K, Licht PB. Reverse airflow in certain chest drains
may be misinterpreted as prolonged air leakage. World J Surg 2011;35:
596–9.
[17] Cerfolio RJ, Varela G, Brunelli A. Digital and smart chest drainage systems
to monitor air leaks: the birth of a new era? Thorac Surg Clin 2010;20:
413–20.
[18] Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Extending the
CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treat-
ment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:295–309.
[19] Pompili C, Brunelli A, Salati M, Refai M, Sabbatini A. Impact of the learning
curve in the use of a novel electronic chest drainage system after
pulmonary lobectomy: a case-matched analysis on the duration of chest
tube usage. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2011;13:490–3; discussion 93.
[20] Gomez-Caro A, Calvo MJ, Lanzas JT, Chau R, Cascales P, Parrilla P. The ap-
proach of fused fissures with fissureless technique decreases the incidence
of persistent air leak after lobectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;31:
203–8.
[21] Elsayed H, McShane J, Shackcloth M. Air leaks following pulmonary resec-
tion for lung cancer: is it a patient or surgeon related problem? Ann R Coll
Surg Engl 2012;94:422–7.
[22] Bjerregaard LS, Jensen K, Petersen RH, Hansen HJ. Early chest tube
removal after video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy with serous fluid
production up to 500 ml/day. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;45:241–6.
APPENDIX. CONFERENCE DISCUSSION
Scan to your mobile or go to
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/6153/1
to search for the presentation on the EACTS library
Dr M. Ibrahim (Rome, Italy): Even though this study arrives after the publication
of a meaningful multicentre international clinical trial evaluating the outcomes
of electronic and traditional chest drainage systems, it seems to bring new
insight into the topic. I have a few questions for you in order to clarify some
aspects.
First of all, you removed the chest tube when no bubbles were visible in the
analogical drainage and when the air leaks were less than 20 ml/min for 6 con-
secutive hours or less than 50 ml/min for 12 h in the digital group. There is a
clear discrepancy between the two groups in terms of the air leak manage-
ment. This could represent an important bias. What is your opinion on this?
Dr Lijkendijk: I agree that it could represent a bias. Maybe if we had looked
at the analogue chest drainage system and allowed tiny bubbles before remov-
ing chest tubes, it could have been fairer to the Thora-Seal chest drainage
group.
We know that there is a lot of inter-observer variability when removing chest
tubes postoperatively, and so we needed to have clear criteria as to how we
have to remove the chest tubes. Actually, the Thora-Seal group was managed,
and the analogue chest tube drainage system was managed as we used to do in
our department. We used to remove the chest tubes when there is no air
leakage. So there was nothing different in how we managed these patients and
this drainage type system.
As for the criteria that we used in the digital group, we looked to the litera-
ture and found a study by Dr Cerfolio, who used the 20 ml/min criterion when
removing the digital chest tube device. The 50 ml/min is a criterion that was
used in another thoracic centre in Denmark for quite some time successfully.
So these are the reasons why we chose to have this algorithm.
Dr Ibrahim: Secondly, you claim to have planned chest tube removal if the
fluid production was less than 400 cc, but you don’t clarify if you have consid-
ered the characteristics of the fluid.
Moreover, the average time of chest tube duration was very short, as you
have shown. For that reason, it could be interesting to know the duration in the
subset of patients who had undergone VATS lobectomy and how it might have
influenced the results. Do you have the hard data about this? Alternatively, are
you planning on obtaining them and using them for further studies?
Dr Lijkendijk: As regards the fluid, how the fluid was?
Dr Ibrahim: Yes.
Dr Lijkendijk: We did observe the patients for signs of ongoing bleeding.
Obviously, we didn’t remove the chest tubes if this was the case.
And as for the data on the VATS subgroup, I do have some data with me con-
cerning the length of hospital stay, but unfortunately, we didn’t extract the data
on chest tube duration yet. It is something that we will use further. The data on
the length of hospital stay in the VATS subgroup is in actual numbers very
similar to the thoracotomy subgroup.
Dr Ibrahim: Okay. And the last question, I seem to have understood that the
digital group received 15 mmHg suction. Otherwise, the analogue group did
not receive suction; is that correct? And I think this aspect could have influ-
enced the results. What do you think?
Dr Lijkendijk: Well, we are not convinced that applying suction would
benefit or facilitate an early chest tube removal. We used suction in the digital
device because it’s recommended by the company, and if we don’t use suction,
it works with a one-way valve only, the Thopaz system.
We believe that essentially, it’s a study comparing two different drainage
systems and way of handling the postoperative chest tube management, and
we choose to focus on the mobilization of the patient and wanted to not put
 M. Lijkendijk et al. / European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
suction on our traditional device as it would make the patient stay near a
suction line. So this is why we did this.
Dr T. Treasure (London, UK): In electronics, there is a clear distinction
between digital and analogue signals but in your very nice study, you are re-
placing visual inspection with an electronic device.
Dr Lijkendijk: Yes.
Dr Treasure: It is the detection device which is digital. There is an
implied dichotomy, that if it isn’t digital must be analogue, which doesn’t
7
apply to chest tubes. Do you want to defend the use of the word ‘ana-
logue chest tube’? Otherwise, I would suggest we don’t perpetuate it
because what you are talking about is visually inspected conventional
chest drain.
Dr Lijkendijk: Yes. Well, we could have used conventional chest drainage.
Dr Treasure: As Dr Ibrahim did.
Dr Lijkendijk: Yes, yes, exactly. Well, I don’t have a long explanation of why
THORACIC
we used that word instead of conventional.