Clare Burdett

Suction on chest drains following lung resection: evidence and practice are not aligned

OBJECTIVES A best evidence topic in Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery (2006) looked at application of suction to chest drains following pulmonary lobectomy. After screening 391 papers, the authors analysed six studies (five randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and found no evidence in favour of postoperative suction in terms of air leak duration, time to chest drain removal or length of stay. Indeed, suction was found to be detrimental in four studies. We sought to determine whether clinical practice is consistent with published evidence by surveying thoracic units nationally and performing a meta-analysis of current best evidence. METHODS We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for RCTs, comparing outcomes with and without application of suction to chest drains after lung surgery. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan(©) software. A questionnaire concerning chest drain management and suction use was emailed to a clinical representative in every thoracic unit. RESULTS Eight RCTs, published 2001-13, with 31-500 participants, were suitable for meta-analysis. Suction prolonged length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] 1.74 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-2.30), chest tube duration (WMD 1.77 days; 95% CI 1.47-2.07) and air leak duration (WMD 1.47 days; 95% CI 1.45-2.03). There was no difference in occurrence of prolonged air leak. Suction was associated with fewer instances of postoperative pneumothorax. Twenty-five of 39 thoracic units responded to the national survey. Suction is routinely used by all surgeons in 11 units, not by any surgeon in 5 and by some surgeons in 9. Of the 91 surgeons represented, 62 (68%) routinely used suction. Electronic drains are used in 15 units, 10 of which use them routinely. CONCLUSIONS Application of suction to chest drains following non-pneumonectomy lung resection is common practice. Suction has an effect in hastening the removal of air and fluid in clinical experience but a policy of suction after lung resection has not been shown to offer improved clinical outcomes. Clinical practice is not aligned with Level 1a evidence.

Manubrium-limited sternotomy decreases blood loss after aortic valve replacement surgery

OBJECTIVES Minimally invasive surgical approaches for aortic valve replacement (AVR) are growing in popularity in an attempt to decrease morbidity from conventional surgery. We have adopted a technique that divides only the manubrium and spares the body of the sternum. We sought to determine whether patients benefit from this less-invasive approach. METHODS We retrospectively analysed our prospectively maintained database to review all isolated aortic valve replacements performed in an 18-month period from November 2011 to April 2013. RESULTS One hundred and ninety-one patients were identified, 98 underwent manubrium-limited sternotomy (Mini-AVR) and 93 had a conventional median sternotomy (AVR). The two groups were well matched for preoperative variables and risk (mean logistic EuroSCORE mini-AVR 7.15 vs AVR 6.55, P = 0.47). Mean cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 10 and 6 min longer, respectively, in the mini-AVR group (mean values 88 vs 78 min, P = 0.00040, and 66 vs 60 min, P = 0.0078, respectively). Mini-AVR patients had significantly less postoperative blood loss, 332 vs 513 ml, P = 0.00021, and were less likely to require blood products (fresh-frozen plasma and platelets), 24 vs 36%, P = 0.042. Postoperative complications and length of stay were similar (discharge on or before Day 4; mini-AVR 15 vs AVR 8%, P = 0.17). Valve outcome (paravalvular leak mini-AVR 2 vs AVR 1%, P = 1.00) and survival (mini-AVR 99 vs AVR 97%, P = 0.36) were equal. CONCLUSIONS A manubrium-limited approach maintains outcomes achieved for aortic valve replacement by conventional sternotomy while significantly reducing postoperative blood loss and transfusion of blood products.

Left-handed surgical instruments - a guide for cardiac surgeons.

For ease of use and to aid precision, left-handed instruments are invaluable to the left-handed surgeon. Although they exist, they are not available in many surgical centres. As a result, most operating theatre staff (including many left-handers) have little knowledge of their value or even application. With specific reference to cardiac surgery, this article addresses the ways in which they differ, why they are needed and what is required - with tips on use.

Thermoreactive clips do not reduce sternal infection: a propensity-matched comparison with sternal wires

OBJECTIVES Sternal stability is essential to prevent serious infective complications after sternotomy. This paper examines whether nitinol thermoreactive clips reduce sternal wound infection rates in obese patients [body mass index (BMI) ≥30] compared with sternal wires. METHODS All patients with BMI ≥30 undergoing cardiac surgery via median sternotomy between February 2008 and February 2013 in our institution were divided into two groups depending on sternal closure technique-sternal wires or thermoreactive clips. Comparison was made using propensity-matched analysis with sternal wound infection as the primary outcome. RESULTS Of 1371 patients, 826 (60%) had thermoreactive clips and 545 (40%) sternal wires. The sternal wires group was older (mean age 66.62 ± 10.1 vs 64.35 ± 9.8 years, P = 0.00) with a greater proportion of females (39 vs 26%, P = 0.00). In unmatched group comparison, both superficial sternal wound infection (thermoreactive clips 4% vs wires 3%) and deep infection (thermoreactive clips 3% vs wires 0.6%, P = 0.00) were more common in the thermoreactive clips group. More patients in the thermoreactive clips group required debridement and a larger number had vacuum-assisted closure [thermoreactive clips 10 patients (1%) vs sternal wires 2 (0.4%)]. Propensity-matching yielded two groups of 356 patients. There was no difference in sternal wound infection rates [thermoreactive clips 19 patients (5%) vs sternal wires 15 (4%), P = 0.58] or deep sternal infection rates [thermoreactive clips 9 patients (3%) vs sternal wires 3 (1%), P = 0.11]. CONCLUSIONS Thermoreactive clips did not have an advantage in the prevention of superficial or deep sternal wound infection in obese patients undergoing sternotomy.

Left-handed cardiac surgery: tips from set up to closure for trainees and their trainers

There are certain obstacles which left-handed surgeons can face when training but these are not necessary and often perpetuated by a lack of knowledge. Most have been encountered and overcome at some point but unless recorded and disseminated they will have to be resolved repeatedly by each trainee and their trainers. This article highlights difficulties that the left-hander may encounter in cardiac surgery and gives practical operative advice for both trainees and their trainers to help overcome them.

Left-handed Surgical Instruments - A Guide for Cardiothoracic Surgeons

For ease of use and to aid precision, left-handed instruments are invaluable to the left-handed surgeon. Although they exist, they are not available in many surgical centres. As a result, most operating theatre staff (including many left-handers) have little knowledge of their value or even application.