Digital chest drainage system versus traditional chest drainage system after pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundSeveral randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have compared the efficacy of digital chest drainage system versus traditional chest drainage system. However, the results were inconsistent.MethodsWe searched the Web of Science and Pubmed for observational studies and RCTs that compared the effect of digital chest drainage system with traditional chest drainage system after pulmonary resection. Eight studies (5 randomized control trails and 3 observational studies) comprising 1487 patients met the eligibility criteria.ResultsCompared with the traditional chest drainage system, digital chest drainage system reduced the risk of prolonged air leak (PAL) (RR\u2009=\u20090.54, 95%CI 0.40–0.73, p\u2009<\u20090.0001), and shortened the duration of chest drainage (SMD\u2009=\u2009−\u20090.35, 95%CI -0.60 - -0.09, p\u2009=\u20090.008) and length of hospital stay (SMD\u2009=\u2009−\u20090.35, 95%CI -0.61 - -0.09, p\u2009=\u20090.007) in patients after pulmonary resection.ConclusionsDigital chest drainage system is expected to benefit patients to attain faster recovery and higher life quality as well as to reduce the risk of postoperative complications. Further RCTs with larger sample size are still needed to more clearly elucidate the advantages of digital chest drainage system.