Impact of Hydrogel-Coated Chest Drains on Outcomes in Thoracic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare postoperative outcomes between hydrogel-coated chest drains (HCDs) and conventional non-coated drains (NCDs) in patients undergoing general thoracic surgery, using a propensity score-matched analysis. METHODS: This retrospective multi-institutional study included adult patients who underwent thoracic surgery across 4 European centres between February and September 2022. Patients were grouped according to drain type (HCD vs NCD), and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed to account for 16 preoperative and intraoperative covariates. The primary outcome was length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, chest drain reinsertion, readmission, duration of drainage, and in-hospital mortality. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients undergoing anatomical lung resections. RESULTS: A total of 773 patients were included (HCD n = 362; NCD n = 411). After matching, 724 patients were analysed. HCD use was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (average treatment effect of the treated population -1.87 days; 95% CI -3.04 to -0.695; P = .002), lower odds of ICU admission (odds ratio [OR] 0.29; 95% CI 0.16-0.53; P < .001), and lower in-hospital complication rates (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.55; P < .001). Rates of pneumonia (5.2% vs 13.4%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (2.2% vs 9.0%; P < .001), and retained pleural effusion (0.8% vs 3.6%; P = .015) were significantly lower in the HCD group. There were no significant differences in drain duration, readmission, or mortality. In the anatomical resection subgroup, HCDs were similarly associated with reduced LOS and complications. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrogel-coated drains are associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay compared to conventional drains, particularly in anatomical lung resections. These findings support further prospective evaluation to define the role of HCDs in routine thoracic surgical practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".