Siordia-Zamorano JA, Siordia-Zamorano R, Salazar-Rascón C

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 135-140
PDF size: 91.81 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Cardiac and thoracic surgery procedures usually require the use of large caliber rigid drain tubes that are commonly associated with pain and discomfort; in these aspects the use of flexible tubes combined with portable suction units merit consideration and evaluation. Methods: We report a series of 250 patients: 193 adults (107 male, 86 female; average age 52.5 yrs.) and 57 pediatric patients (32 male, 25 female; average age 8.5 years) who underwent a variety of cardiac or thoracic surgical procedures in which the use of smaller caliber flexible tubes connected to a bulb type suction unit was implemented. Drained volumes were compared between both systems. Pain evaluation using an analog visual scale was analyzed with that obtained from 250 consecutive patients in whom conventional drain systems were used. Results: In adult patients average volume drained by the portable/flexible system was 335.78 mL ± 167.84 mL and for the rigid tube 331.51 mL ± 97.86 mL. In the pediatric group, the flexible tube with a portable suction unit reported and average drained volume of 73.60 mL ± 33.27 mL while the conventional rigid tube plus wall suction reported an average drained volume of 342.28 ± 88.72 mL. Student’s t was used for statistical analysis. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate these drains are equally capable of draining small or large volumes in adult and pediatric patients with the advantage of less pain with earlier and more comfortable mobility.

REFERENCES

1. Frankel TL, Hill PC, Stamou SC, Lowery RC, Pfister AJ, Jain A, Corso PJ. Silastic drains vs conventional chest tubes after coronary bypass. Chest 2003; 124: 108-113.

2. Obney JA, Barnes MJ, Lisagor PG, Cohen DJ. A method for mediastinal drainage after cardiac procedures using small silastic drains. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 70: 1109-1110.

3. Lancey AL, Gaca C, Vander-Salm TJ. The use of smaller, more flexible chest drains following open heart surgery. Chest 2001; 119: 19-23.

4. Ege T, Tatli E, Canvaz S, Cikirikciouglu M, Sunar H, Bilhan O, Duran E. The Importance of Intrapericardial drain selection in cardiac surgery. Chest 2004; 126: 1559-1562.

5. Hyde J, Sykes T, Graham T. Reducing morbidity from chest drains. BMJ 1997; 314: 914-915.

6. Smulder YM, Wiepking ME, Moulijn AC, Koolen JJ, van Wezel HB, Visser CAL. How soon should drainage tubes be removed after cardiac operations? Ann Thorac Surg 1989; 48: 540-543.

7. Svedjeholm R, Hakanson E. Postoperative myocardial ischemia caused by chest tube compression of vein graft. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 64: 1806-1808.

8. Kollef MH, Dothager DW. Reversible cardiogenic shock due to chest tube compression of the right ventricle. Chest 1991; 99: 976-980.

9. Taub PJ, Lajam F, Kim U. Erosion into the subclavian artery by a chest tube. J Trauma 1999; 47: 972-974.

10. Quak JM, Szatmari A, van den Anker JN. Cardiac tamponade in preterm neonate secondary to chest tube. Acta Paediatr 1993; 82: 490-491.