F-057 * DOES THE USAGE OF A DIGITAL CHEST DRAINAGE SYSTEM REDUCE PLEURAL INFLAMMATION AND VOLUME OF PLEURAL EFFUSION AFTER MAJOR LUNG RESECTIONS FOR CANCER? A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Excessive amounts of pleural effusion are a common cause for delay in chest tube removal following lung resection. Digital pleural drainage systems are increasingly used, with assumed superiority over traditional analogue systems in the management of postoperative air leak. The effect of the system type on pleural effusion and inflammation has not been studied. We hypothesized that digital systems, introducing intermittent, balanced suction would be associated with less pleural inflammation and effusion formation. Methods: One hundred and three patients, enrolled in a prospective, randomized controlled study, received either analogue (n = 50) or digital (n = 53) drainage systems following lung resection for malignancy. Chest tubes were removed according to an a priori defined protocol. Inflammatory mediators (interleukin-6, 8, 10, 1Ra, TNF-α) in pleural fluid and sputum were collected and analysed. The primary outcome was to observe differences in pleural effusion volume. Secondary outcomes were duration of chest tube in situ, air-leak incidence, length of hospital stay and degree of pleural inflammation. Results: Mean age was 66.7 years, 50.5% male. A trend for shorter chest tube duration was found with the digital system (P = 0.055). There was no difference in total amount of fluid drained or length of hospital stay. Incidence of prolonged postoperative air leak was significantly higher when using the analogue system (9 vs 2; P = 0.025). Video-assisted procedures were superior to open on all outcomes (P < 0.001). Lobectomy was associated with longer chest tube duration (P = 0.001) and increased fluid drainage when compared to sublobar resection (P < 0.001), regardless of drainage system. Comparison of inflammatory mediator levels revealed no difference. Conclusions: Digital drainage systems are superior in regards to incidence of postoperative air leak and chest tube duration. Inflammatory mediators and total pleural effusion volume are not correlated with the type of drainage system utilized. Minimally invasive procedures and sublobar resections have less effusion formation and shorter duration of chest tube. Disclosure: No significant relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".