Management of chest tubes after pulmonary resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Canadian Journal of Surgery

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 264-270

  Coughlin, Shaun M ^a   Emmerton Coughlin, Heather M A ^a   Malthaner, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865228989     PISSN: 0008428X     EISSN: 14882310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cjs.001411     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cerfolio RJ, Bass C, Katholi CR. Prospective randomized trial compares suction versus water seal for air leaks. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71:1613-7.
2. Marshall MB, Deeb ME, Bleier JI, et al. Suction vs water seal after pulmonary resection: a randomized prospective study. Chest 2002; 121: 831-5. (Pubitemid 34251450)
3. 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. (Pubitemid 43807244)
4. Deng B, Tan QY, Zhao YP, et al. Suction or non-suction to the underwater seal drains following pulmonary operation: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010;38:210-5.
5. Shields TW, Iocicero R, Ponn RB, et al. General thoracic surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippcott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
6. Selke FW, Del Midi PJ, Swanson SJ. Surgery of the chest. 7th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Saunders Elsevier; 2005.
7. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. Available: www.cochrane.org/ resources/handbook/hbook.htm (accessed 2012 May 9).
8. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, et al. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987;8:343-53. (Pubitemid 18040816)
9. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88. (Pubitemid 17189972)
10. Breslow N, Day N. Combination of results from a series of 2 x 2 tables; control of confounding. In: Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume 1. The analysis of case-control studies. Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer 1980. p. 136-46.
11. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a metaanalysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539-58.
12. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM group. Br J Surg 2000;87:1448-54.
13. Alphonso N, Tan C, Utley M, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of suction versus non-suction to the under-water seal drains following lung resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;27:391-4. (Pubitemid 40312343)
14. Ayed AK. Suction versus water seal after thoracoscopy for primary spontaneous pneumothorax: prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1593-6. (Pubitemid 36515246)
15. Brunelli A, Monteverde M, Borri A, et al. Comparison of water seal and suction after pulmonary lobectomy: a prospective, randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:1932-7. (Pubitemid 38686560)
16. Daneshvar KA, Pooya M, Pejhan S, et al. Effect of chest tube suction on air-leak following lung resection. Tanaffos 2006;5:37-43. (Pubitemid 46901756)
17. Prokakis C, Koletsis EN, Apostolakis E, et al. Routine suction of intercostal drains is not necessary after lobectomy: a prospective randomized trial. World J Surg 2008;32:2336-42.
18. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490.
19. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an American college of chest physicians task force. Chest 2006;129:174-81. (Pubitemid 43265259)
20. Guyatt GH, Oxman A, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence - study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407-15.