Marco Scarci
Andreas Gkikas
Davide Patrini
Fabrizio Minervini
Robert J. Cerfolio- 1Department of Thoracic Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
- 2Department of Thoracic Surgery, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
- 3Department of Thoracic Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland
- 4Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, United States
Introduction
Thoracic surgeons have pioneered fast-track and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines over 22 years ago (1) and have developed new peri-operative techniques and pathways that ensure high quality post-operative results and quicker patient recovery. This is reflected on the constant pursue of creating new surgical approaches, establishing the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines and the unceasing re-evaluation of pre-operative assessment and post-operative management (2–4).
For lung resection surgery in particular, minimally invasive thoracoscopic methods have gained ground since 1990. The most prominent approaches in this category are the video-assisted and completely portal robotic techniques, VATS and CPR respectively (5). According to a recent randomized controlled study, evidence supports that VATS is associated with less post-operative pain, complications and length of hospital stay compared to an open approach (3).
Another aspect of thoracic surgical practice that has been a topic of debate is chest drain management. This is considered one of the main causes of long hospital stay, post-operative pain and complications. Overall, prolonged use of chest drain increases pain, reduces patient mobility and causes complications. In this review, we summarize the existing publications in early chest drain removal and no chest drain insertion practice following lung resection via VATS. We subsequently commented on the effectiveness and safety of early chest drain removal strategies following open and robotic-assisted approaches.
Methods
We performed a review of the literature and searched the medical electronic libraries of Medline and Cochrane using the search strategy presented in Appendix 1.
Our inclusion criteria were studies that investigated early chest drain removal strategies or no chest drain insertion strategies post VATS lung resection. We excluded studies that investigated only open approaches, focused solely on pediatric population, and were published in any language other than English.
Our search strategy returned 2,115 studies which were screened. After title and abstract and full text screening, we found 41 studies that met our criteria (6–46). We classified the eligible studies in three distinct categories: (a) studies that investigated early chest drain removal in non-anatomical lung resections, (b) studies that investigated no chest drain insertion post lung resection and (c) studies that investigated early chest drain removal in anatomical lung resections. We defined the no chest drain insertion group as the absence of chest drain before patient extubation. The outcomes that we were interested in were the length of hospital stay, the post-operative complications and more particularly the events of pneumothorax and pleural effusions post-operatively, the incidence of chest drain insertions and the post-operative pain assessment. We present the results of these studies in the form of narrative text.
Results
Early chest drain removal in VATS non-anatomical lung resections
We found four studies that met our criteria for early chest drain removal after non-anatomical lung resection (6–9). Three of these studies were published between 1998 and 2006 and are all case series following VATS wedge resections (6–8). The enrolled patients had peripherally located disease and were all performed under single-lung ventilation. The investigated strategies did not focus on intra-operative air seal tests but re-inflation of the lung was reviewed under direct vision before closure. The size of chest drains was between 24–28 Fr and in two studies, suction was applied at the end of the operation (−15 cm H2O to −20 cm H2O) (7, 8). The definition of early chest drain removal varied among the three publications from 60 min post-operatively in the study by Fibla et al. to 8 h post-operatively by Chang et al. (6–8). However, all of them had as initial goal for chest drain removal while the patient was in Recovery. The decision for early removal was determined on the absence of air leak, drainage of <50–100 ml/hr and good lung expansion on post-operative CXR.
In the group of patients who underwent early chest drain removal their length of stay (LOS) was shorter compared to those who had to either keep their chest drain because they did not meet the removal criteria (7) or because they were managed with more conservative chest drain strategies (6). The incidence of new chest drain insertion among patients who had their drain removed early was 2% (3/146) (8), 2% (1/45) (7) and 0% (5). Only one study investigated the effect of their strategy on post-operative pain and showed that the total narcotic requirement was significantly less in the early removal group (p = 0.005) (5).
The fourth study after non-anatomical lung resection was solely focused on patients who underwent double-lumen tube intubation and VATS bullectomy, mechanical and chemical pleurodesis for primary spontaneous pneumothorax (9). This included 105 patients who had a negative air leak test intra-operatively. The chest drain was removed on post-operative day 0 in all patients after absence of air leak during cough, absence of bloody discharge and completely expanded lung on immediately post-operative CXR. Their mean length of stay was 1.1 ± 0.5 days, one patient required chest drain re-insertion because of pneumothorax. 12 patients (11.4%) experienced recurrence of their pneumothorax after having had their operation. The investigators also reported that among 18 patients from their institution who had the same procedure in that period but did not have their chest drains removed on day of the operation, due to air leak and bloody discharge, the recurrence of pneumothorax was estimated at 11.1% (2/18), p = 1.00.
No chest drain insertion in VATS non-anatomical lung resections
We identified 26 studies that investigated management strategies that used no chest tube after VATS non-anatomical lung resections (10–35). From these studies, 85% (22/26) have been published after 2016 which illustrates the growing interest of thoracic surgeons on the topic of no chest drain following thoracic procedures (14–35). These are 7 randomized controlled trials, 15 retrospective studies and 4 prospective studies.
Following review of their inclusion and exclusion criteria, we concluded that the patients who were enrolled for the no chest drain management strategy were a highly selected population. The selection criteria were understandably variable among the different studies but they mostly comprised of patients with no diffuse underlying lung disease, who were not coagulopathic, had no intra-operative complications, no extensive adhesions, no unstable systematic diseases such as active infection, uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension or angina, no previous ipsilateral thoracic surgery, no recent (<3 months) radiotherapy or chemotherapy and did not undergo anatomical lung resection or conversion from VATS to an open approach.
Furthermore, in all these studies the investigators performed an intra-operative air leak assessment after lung resection. Some studies assessed the presence of air leak by immersing the lung in saline and then proceeding with re-inflation of the operated lung with positive inspiratory pressures (ranged from −10 cm H2O to 30 cm H2O) and assessing under direct vision for sites of air leak (17, 18, 25, 26).
Chest tube removal prior to leaving the operating room
Another method which was widely performed was the temporary insertion of a chest drain inside the pleural cavity (10, 11, 22, 24–28, 30–33). After closing all the intra-operative chest wall incisions, the drain was subsequently either connected to a digital suction system with negative suction (24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35) or its extra-thoracic end was simply immersed to a bowl with sterile water (10, 11, 22, 32) while the anesthetic team administered manually positive inspiratory pressures. Then if there was no air leak by both the anesthesiologist assessment of volume delivered and returned and by the digital air leak meter attached to the chest tube the chest drain was removed before extubation. In some studies, the investigators decided to leave either a central line or an ABLE catheter within the chest as a safety net to evacuate excess air of fluid if required (21, 22, 32, 33). The size of the temporary chest drain ranged from 12 Fr to 24 Fr while in two cases the researchers used a nasogastric tube (19) and a Ryles' tube (11) to assess intra-operatively the presence of air leak.
When this highly selected criteria were met and the patients did not have a chest drain inserted in the operating theatre, their length of stay was significantly shorter in 16/17 studies compared to patients who had chest drain inserted (10–14, 17–22, 25–27, 30, 33). This was confirmed even from the randomized trials in which the enrolled patients met the same intra-operative criteria during the air leak test (11, 17, 20, 22, 26, 27). The incidence of pneumothorax during the post-operative period was higher among the non-chest drain group but was statistically significant in 4 studies (18, 20, 26, 32). However, this significance was not translated in chest drain insertion rate between the two groups at any study (10–23, 25–27, 32–34). Furthermore, the no chest drain strategy appeared to improve significantly the post-operative pain in 10 studies (14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25–27, 32, 33) which was more significant on post-operative day 0 and day 1, 2 and 3. The only study that assessed post-operative pain for longer period (in 1 week and 1 month) did not show significant differences between chest drain insertion and no chest drain insertion groups (25).
Early chest drain removal in VATS anatomical lung resections
We identified 11 studies that investigated early chest drain removal strategies following VATS anatomical lung resection (36–46). All of them were published mostly over the last decade, with the oldest study on the topic being from the United States in 2007 (36). These are comprised of 2 randomized controlled trials, 1 prospective multi-institutional cohort study, 1 prospective single-institutional cohort study and 7 retrospective studies and case series.
The population enrolled in these studies excluded patients who had chemotherapy and radiotherapy, patients who were converted from VATS to open, patients with history of previous thoracotomy, heart failure, nephritic syndrome, chronic renal failure, cirrhosis and patients with extensive pleural adhesions. In 4 studies, an intra-operative air leak test was performed (38, 42, 45, 46). If areas of air leak were identified during the test then pneumostasis was attempted by using polyglycolic acid (PGA) mesh, fibrin glue (38, 42), staplers (45) or continuous suturing of the pleural edge of the preserved segments (45, 46). The only study that investigated the effect of pneumostatic agents in early drain removal, applied PGA mesh and fibrin glue on the areas of intra-operatively identified air leak (38). They compared 133 patients who received these agents with 73 patients who did not. This showed that the duration of chest drain and recurrence of air leaks was no different between these two groups. However, it is important to note that the patients who did not receive pneumostasis did not have identifiable air leak during the operation.
From the 11 studies, 1 had a protocol of connecting the chest drain on suction after the operation (38). The earlier chest drain removal following VATS lobectomy or segmentectomy was attempted by Murakami et al. who aimed to take the drain out just after extubation (42). Following PGA mesh and fibrin glue application on the identifiable areas of air leak during a water seal test, the decision was made for early chest drain removal strategy if no further air leak was seen. At the end of the procedure, a 20 Fr chest drain was temporarily inserted and connected to −5 cm H2O suction while simultaneously, the lungs were inflated by continuous positive pressure at 10 cm H2O by the anesthetist. The drain was successfully removed in 102 (63%) of the 162 patients. No patient required chest drain insertion for pneumothorax or surgical emphysema. One patient out of 102 underwent a needle puncture for the drainage of persistent pleural effusion on post-operative day 10. There was statistically significant reduction in VAS values on pain assessment from post-operative day 0 (p < 0.001) until day 3 (p < 0.05) when compared to the patients who kept their chest drain in situ after extubation.
Pfeuty and Zheng aimed at removing the chest drain in <24 h after the operation (45, 46). Their criteria were <20 ml/min air leak for 4 h, with no hemorrhagic or chylous drainage despite the output. Another study in which the investigators decided on drain removal regardless of the amount of pleural drainage was the one by Ueda et al. (38). Although, they did not specify a specific post-operative day for early drain removal. Xing defined as early chest drain removal the first 48 h from the operation (44). Their criteria were no atelectasis on post-operative day 1 CXR, absence of air leak and no purulent or chylous discharge. Similar thresholds were used by 2 more studies (41, 43) who aimed at removing the chest drain on post-operative day 1. However, in one of these studies the investigators were keeping a smaller (7 Fr) drain in situ until day 3–4. This drain had been inserted intra-operatively. In four publications, the authors used variable thresholds on tube drainage (36, 37, 39, 40). The cut off for drain removal in these studies ranged from 300 to 500 mls/24 h.
Even in studies that did not use the daily drain output as a criterion for drain removal, there were not many reported cases that required chest drain re-insertion (2.2%, 18/802) (40, 42, 44–46). There were three studies that evaluated the effect of early drain removal on post-operative pain (42, 45, 46). In two studies (42, 45), early removal was associated with less pain on VAS while the third study did not reflect the same outcome (46). The latter study assessed the VAS of pain on day 0, 1, 7 and 1 month after the operation and showed no significant differences in the postoperative pain between >24 h and ≤24 h drain removal (46).
Comment
Early chest drain removal in open lung resection
The benefits from adapting early chest drain removal protocols even in lung resections performed via thoracotomy was highlighted by Nomori et al. from 2001 (47). Their findings supported that in absence of air leak and drain output of less than 400 mls, the chest drain can be safely removed on post-operative day 1. This was achieved in 60% of their patients (25/42). When they compared their new protocol with a historic control group from their database, the percentage change in 6-minute walk test 1 week post-operatively was significantly higher in the early chest drain removal group.
The same threshold of 400 mls over 24 h and absence of air leak was used by Bertholet et al. for early drain removal after lung resection for lung cancer via posterolateral thoracotomy (48). In this study, the early removal group was also compared to a historic cohort from the same department when two chest drains were inserted instead of one. The criteria for drain removal in the old protocol were absence of air leak and drain output of less than 150 mls over a day. The patients from the early removal group had a significantly reduced hospital stay (11 from eight days) with no statistical differences being observed in terms of postoperative complications. Three patients (3/68, 4.4%) from the historic cohort and six (6/65, 9.2%) from the new protocol required pleural puncture due to pleural effusion post drain removal (p = 0.318).
Early chest drain removal in robotic-assisted lung resection
A recent meta-analysis has demonstrated that robotic-assisted lung resection for lung cancer is a safe alternative to VATS with lower conversion rate and shorter length of hospital stay (49).
Geraci and Cerfolio from NYU Langone recently reported a prospective protocol on the removal of all chest tubes within 6–8 h after robotic pulmonary lobectomy and segmentectomy on 253 consecutive patients. The goal was for all patients to go home in 24 h (with a chest tube attached to a digital air leak device) and or to have their tubes removed within 6–8 h after resection. Patients were given ice-cream in the recovery room to rule out a chylothorax to facilitate early chest tube removal. The authors showed that it is feasible and safe to discharge patients on post-operative day 1 (50). Overall, this was achieved in 53% (134/253) of the patients and it reached 97% (28/29) and 68% (23/34) during the last quartile of the study for segmentectomy and lobectomy respectively. The criteria for chest drain removal were solely based on absence of air leak on a digital air leak meter with a fully expanded lung or fixed pleural space deficit on post-operative CXR regardless of fluid output. From this approach and efficient operation with little to no blood loss and under two hours of total operative time tehre were no conversions to thoracotomy, only 2.4% (6/253) of the patients had major complications with 3 of them requiring outpatient thoracentesis because of pleural effusion within 30-days. There was no 30- or 90-day mortality while only 1.6% (4/253) required re-admission within 30-days.
Conclusion
Evidence supports that early chest drain removal strategies can be beneficial to certain patients following lung resections. Video-assisted and robotic-assisted approaches offer the most favorable outcomes when such protocols are adopted. These appear to reduce length of hospitalization and are associated with less pain during the first post-operative days. Even the more ambitious practices of no intra-operative chest drain insertion has shown promising results and appear to be safe in highly selected patient population. The ERAS guidelines in thoracic surgery have not yet addressed the significance of intra-operative assessment of patients who may benefit from such strategies (4). We believe that further research is required in order to identify accurately the subgroup of patients who benefit from these practices.
Author contributions
All authors contributed equally to the writing, Cerfolio had senior review role. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Cerfolio RJ, Pickens A, Bass C, Katholi C. Fast-tracking pulmonary resections. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2001) 122(2):318–24. doi: 10.1067/mtc.2001.114352
2. Falcoz PE, Puyraveau M, Thomas PA, Decaluwe H, Hürtgen M, Petersen RH, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open lobectomy for primary non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis of outcome from the European society of thoracic surgeon database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2016) 49:602–9. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv154
3. Lim E, Harris RA, McKeon HE, Batchelor TJ, Dunning J, Shackcloth M, et al. Impact of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open lobectomy for lung cancer on recovery assessed using self-reported physical function: VIOLET RCT. Health Technol Assess. (2022) 26(48):1–162. doi: 10.3310/THBQ1793
4. Batchelor TJP, Rasburn NJ, Abdelnour-Berchtold E, Brunelli A, Cerfolio RJ, Gonzalez M, et al. Guidelines for enhanced recovery after lung surgery: recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2019) 55(1):91–115. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy301
5. Kent MS, Hartwig MG, Vallières E, Abbas AE, Cerfolio RJ, Dylewski MR, et al. Pulmonary Open, Robotic, and Thoracoscopic Lobectomy (PORTaL) study: an analysis of 5721 cases. Ann Surg. (2023) 277(3):528–33. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005115
6. Russo L, Wiechmann RJ, Magovern JA, Szydlowski GW, Mack MJ, Naunheim KS, et al. Early chest tube removal after videoassisted thoracoscopic wedge resection of the lung. Ann Thorac Surg. (1998) 66:1751–4. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00946-1
7. Chang AC, Yee J, Orringer MB, Iannettoni MD. Diagnostic thoracoscopic lung biopsy: an outpatient experience. Ann Thorac Surg. (2002) 74:1942–7. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04164-4
8. Fibla JJ, Molins L, Simon C, Pérez J, Vidal G. Early removal of chest drainage after videothoracoscopic lung biopsy. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg. (2006) 5:581–3. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2006.129338
9. Furuya T, Ii T, Yanada M, Toda S. Early chest tube removal after surgery for primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2019) 67(9):794–9. doi: 10.1007/s11748-019-01094-7
10. Watanabe A, Watanabe T, Ohsawa H, Mawatari T, Ichimiya Y, Takahashi N, et al. Avoiding chest tube placement after video-assisted thoracoscopic wedge resection of the lung. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2004) 25:872–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.01.041
11. Luckraz H, Rammohan KS, Phillips M, Abel R, Karthikeyan S, Kulatilake NE, et al. Is an intercostal chest drain necessary after video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) lung biopsy? Ann Thorac Surg. (2007) 84:237–9. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.03.007
12. Satherley K, Luckraz H, Rammohan KS, Phillips M, Kulatilake NEP, O’Keefe PA. Routine placement of an intercostal chest drain during video-assisted thoracoscopic surgical lung biopsy unnecessarily prolongs in-hospital length of stay in selected patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2009) 36:737–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.04.067
13. Nakashima S, Watanabe A, Mishina T, Obama T, Mawatari T, Higami T. Feasibility and safety of postoperative management without chest tube placement after thoracoscopic wedge resection of the lung. Surg Today. (2011) 41:774–9. doi: 10.1007/s00595-010-4346-5
14. Cui F, Liu J, Li S, Yin W, Xin X, Shao W, et al. Tubeless video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) under non-intubated, intravenous anesthesia with spontaneous ventilation and no placement of chest tube postoperatively. J Thorac Dis. (2016) 8(8):2226–32. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.08.02
15. Holbek BL, Hansen HJ, Kehlet H, Petersen RH. Thoracoscopic pulmonary wedge resection without post-operative chest drain: an observational study. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2016) 64(10):612–7. doi: 10.1007/s11748-016-0692-6
16. Li S, Jiang L, Ang KL, Chen H, Dong Q, Yang H, et al. New tubeless video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for small pulmonary nodules. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2017) 51(4):689–93. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezw364
17. Steunenberg BE, Aerts BAC, de Groot HGW, Romme PJHJ, Boot CA, Veen EJ. Is it still necessary to leave a chest tube after video-assisted pulmonary wedge resection? Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2017) 33:132–6. doi: 10.1007/s12055-017-0508-z
18. Yang SM, Wang ML, Hung MH, Hsu HH, Cheng YJ, Chen JS. Tubeless uniportal thoracoscopic wedge resection for peripheral lung nodules. Ann Thorac Surg. (2017) 103:462–8. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.09.006
19. Lu TY, Chen JX, Chen PR, Lin YS, Chen CK, Kao PY. Evaluation of the necessity for chest drain placement following thoracoscopic wedge resection. Surg Today. (2017) 47:606–10. doi: 10.1007/s00595-016-1414-5
20. Park JB, Hwang JJ, Lee WS, Kim YH, Lee SA. Postoperative chest tube placement after thoracoscopic wedge resection of lung for primary spontaneous pneumothorax: is it mandatory? J Thorac Dis. (2018) 10:4812–8. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.07.13
21. Zhang JT, Tang YC, Lin JT, Dong S, Nie Q, Jiang BY, et al. Prophylactic air-extraction strategy after thoracoscopic wedge resection. Thorac Cancer. (2018) 9(11):1406–12. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.12850
22. Lesser T, Doenst T, Lehmann T, Mukdessi J. Lung bioposy without pleural drainage. Dtsch Arztebl Int. (2019) 116:329–34. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2019.0329
23. Zhang JT, Dong S, Chu XP, Lin SM, Yu RY, Jiang BY, et al. Randomized trial of an improved drainage strategy versus routine chest tube after lung wedge resection. Ann Thorac Surg. (2020) 109(4):1040–6. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.11.029
24. Liu CY, Hsu PK, Leong KI, Ting CK, Tsou MY. Is tubeless uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery for pulmonary wedge resection a safe procedure? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2020) 58:i70–6. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaa061
25. Liu Z, Yang R, Sun Y. Tubeless uniportal thoracoscopic wedge resection with modified air leak test and chest tube drainage. BMC Surg. (2020) 20(1):301. doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-00910-9
26. Liao HC, Yang SM, Hung MH, Cheng YJ, Hsu HH, Chen JS. Thoracoscopic surgery without drainage tube placement for peripheral lung nodules. Ann Thorac Surg. (2020) 109:887–93. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.10.048
27. Kawaguchi Y, Hanaoka J, Hayashi K. Feasibility of early removal of chest tube in the operating room for spontaneous pneumothorax: a prospective randomized controlled study. Asian J Surg. (2021) 44(1):339–44. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.08.009
28. Lin CK, Leong KI, How CH, Wang HC, Liu CY. Drainless thoracoscopic surgery should be avoided in primary spontaneous pneumothorax with pleural adhesion. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2022) 35(4):ivac237. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivac237
29. Igai H, Matsuura N, Numajiri K, Ohsawa F, Kamiyoshihara M. Feasibility of tubeless thoracoscopic bullectomy in primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2023) 71(2):138–44. doi: 10.1007/s11748-022-01869-5
30. Yoshimura R, Kamemori T, Deguchi H, Tomoyasu M, Kudo S, Shigeeda W, et al. No-drain management after thoracoscopic lung wedge resection with a novel intraoperative sealing test. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2022) 70(10):900–7. doi: 10.1007/s11748-022-01815-5
31. Ahn S, Moon Y. Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery without drainage-tube placement for pulmonary wedge resection: a single-center retrospective study. J Cardiothorac Surg. (2022) 17(1):317. doi: 10.1186/s13019-022-02053-9
32. Xu G, Du J, Zhang J, Chen H, Zheng B, Yang Z, et al. A propensity sore-matched study: applying a modified chest tube drainage strategy in rapid rehabilitation following uni-portal thoracoscopic pulmonary wedge resection. Thorac Cancer. (2022) 13(11):1657–63. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.14438
33. Wei S, Zhang G, Ma J, Nong L, Zhang J, Zhong W, et al. Randomized controlled trial of an alternative drainage strategy vs routine chest tube insertion for postoperative pain after thoracoscopic wedge resection. BMC Anesthesiol. (2022) 22(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s12871-022-01569-w
34. Laven IEWG, Franssen AJPM, van Dijk DPJ, Daemen JHT, Gronenschild MHM, Hulsewé KWE, et al. A no-chest-drain policy after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery wedge resection in selected patients: our 12-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg. (2022) S0003-4975(22):00662–2. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.04.030
35. Li Q, Jiang Y, Ding J, Li H, Zhang W, Chen H, et al. Chest tube-free video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery secured by quantitative air leak monitoring: a case series. J Thorac Dis. (2023) 15(1):146–54. doi: 10.21037/jtd-22-1749
36. McKenna RJ Jr, Mahtabifard A, Pickens A, Kusuanco D, Fuller CB. Fast-tracking after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy, segmentectomy, and pneumonectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. (2007) 84(5):1663–7; discussion 1667–8. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.05.058
37. Göttgens KW, Siebenga J, Belgers EH, van Huijstee PJ, Bollen EC. Early removal of the chest tube after complete video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomies. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2011) 39(4):575–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.08.002
38. Ueda K, Tanaka T, Hayashi M, Li TS, Hamano K. Verification of early removal of the chest tube after absorbable mesh-based pneumostasis subsequent to video-assisted major lung resection for cancer. World J Surg. (2012) 36(7):1603–7. doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1557-5
39. 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. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt376
40. Zhang Y, Li H, Hu B, Li T, Miao JB, You B, et al. A prospective randomized single-blind control study of volume threshold for chest tube removal following lobectomy. World J Surg. (2014) 38(1):60–7. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2271-7
41. Jiang H, Wang J, Yuan DF, Fang JW, Li Z. Feasibility and safety of early chest tube removal after complete video-assisted thoracic lobectomy. Indian J Cancer. (2015) 51:60–2. doi: 10.4103/0019-509X.151987
42. Murakami J, Ueda K, Tanaka T, Kobayashi T, Kunihiro Y, Hamano K. The validation of a no-drain policy after thoracoscopic Major lung resection. Ann Thorac Surg. (2017) 104(3):1005–11. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.03.030
43. Nakanishi R, Fujino Y, Kato M, Miura T, Yasuda M, Oda R, et al. Early chest tube removal after thoracoscopic lobectomy with the aid of an additional thin tube: a prospective multi-institutional study. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2018) 66(12):723–30. doi: 10.1007/s11748-018-0993-z
44. Xing T, Li X, Liu J, Huang Y, Wu S, Guo M, et al. Early removal of chest tubes leads to better short-term outcome after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lung resection. Ann Transl Med. (2020) 8(4):101. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.12.111
45. Pfeuty K, Lenot B. Early postoperative day 0 chest tube removal using a digital drainage device protocol after thoracoscopic major pulmonary resection. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2020) 31(5):657–63. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivaa170
46. Zheng S, Shi Q, Ma Q, Fu Q, Qiao K. The short-term outcomes for the early removal of pigtail catheter drainage within 24 h of uniportal video-assisted anatomic surgery in patients with lung cancer. Transl Cancer Res. (2022) 11(9):3260–6. doi: 10.21037/tcr-22-1910
47. Nomori H, Horio H, Suemasu K. Early removal of chest drainage tubes and oxygen support after a lobectomy for lung cancer facilitates earlier recovery of the 6-minute walking distance. Surg Today. (2001) 31(5):395–9. doi: 10.1007/s005950170128
48. Bertholet JW, Joosten JJ, Keemers-Gels ME, van den Wildenberg FJ, Barendregt WB. Chest tube management following pulmonary lobectomy: change of protocol results in fewer air leaks. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2011) 12(1):28–31. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2010.248716
49. Zhang J, Feng Q, Huang Y, Ouyang L, Luo F. Updated evaluation of robotic- and video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy or segmentectomy for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:853530. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.853530
Keywords: chest drain, chest drain management, chest drain protocol, lung canc er (LC), thoracic
Citation: Scarci M, Gkikas A, Patrini D, Minervini F and Cerfolio RJ (2023) Editorial: Early chest drain removal following lung resection. Front. Surg. 10:1185334. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1185334
Received: 13 March 2023; Accepted: 20 March 2023;
Published: 31 March 2023.
Edited and Reviewed by: Marco Anile, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
*Correspondence: Marco Scarci marco.scarci@nhs.net
Specialty Section: This article was submitted to Thoracic Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery
© 2023 Scarci, Gkikas, Patrini, Minervini and Cerfolio. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.