4.3 Article

Use of a sealant to prevent prolonged air leaks after lung resection: a prospective randomized study

期刊

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-7-106

关键词

Air leak; Surgical sealant; Digital chest drain

资金

  1. Baxter BioSurgery, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pulmonary air leaks are common complications of lung resection and result in prolonged hospital stays and increased costs. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether, compared with standard care, the use of a synthetic polyethylene glycol matrix (CoSeal (R)) could reduce air leaks detected by means of a digital chest drain system (DigiVent (TM)), in patients undergoing lung resection (sutures and/or staples alone). Methods: Patients who intraoperatively showed moderate or severe air leaks (evaluated by water submersion tests) were intraoperatively randomized to receive just sutures/staples (control group) or sutures/staples plus CoSeal (R) (sealant group). Differences among the groups in terms of air leaks, prolonged air leaks, time to chest tube removal, length of hospital stay and related costs were assessed. Results: In total, 216 lung resection patients completed the study. Nineteen patients (18.1%) in the control group and 12 (10.8%) patients in the sealant group experienced postoperative air leaks, while a prolonged air leak was recorded in 11.4% (n = 12) of patients in the control group and 2.7% (n = 3) of patients in the sealant group. The difference in the incidence of air leaks and prolonged air leaks between the two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0013). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the sealant group (4 days) than the control group (8 days) (p = 0.0001). We also observed lower costs in the sealant group than the control group. Conclusion: The use of CoSeal (R) may decrease the occurrence and severity of postoperative air leaks after lung resection and is associated with shorter hospital stay.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据