Utility of Single Transhiatal Chest Drainage After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Propensity-Score Matched Study of Safety and Feasibility.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Da Wei Thong, Shabnam Islam, Ashok Gunawardene, Sanjeeva Kariyawsam
{"title":"Utility of Single Transhiatal Chest Drainage After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Propensity-Score Matched Study of Safety and Feasibility.","authors":"Da Wei Thong, Shabnam Islam, Ashok Gunawardene, Sanjeeva Kariyawsam","doi":"10.1111/ans.70301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The routine placement of intercostal chest drains remains common practice following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO). Intercostal chest drains may contribute to increased postoperative pain and morbidity. This study compared outcomes between transhiatal and intercostal chest drain placement following MIO, focusing on analgesia use, hospital length of stay, and postoperative pulmonary complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective case-control study of patients undergoing elective MIO at a quaternary center in Western Australia between September 2016 and September 2023. Propensity score matching was used to minimize confounding. All patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients undergoing MIO with exclusive transhiatal drainage, a 19 French Blake's drain was advanced through the hiatus into the right pleural cavity and positioned adjacent to the anastomosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty patients were included in the study, 15 of whom had exclusively transhiatal drain placement. Mean total daily oral morphine dose equivalent was significantly lower in the transhiatal drain group (58 ± 35.8 mg) compared with the intercostal drain group (100.8 ± 64.0 mg) on postoperative Day 1 (p = 0.04). No significant difference was observed in the reintervention rate (p = 1.00), length of stay (p = 0.78), or postoperative pulmonary complications (p = 1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Transhiatal drain placement following MIO was associated with reduced opioid requirements on postoperative Day 1 and demonstrated comparable pulmonary complications and length of stay to intercostal drainage. These findings suggest that transhiatal drainage may be a safe and feasible alternative; however, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary results.</p>","PeriodicalId":8158,"journal":{"name":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70301","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The routine placement of intercostal chest drains remains common practice following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO). Intercostal chest drains may contribute to increased postoperative pain and morbidity. This study compared outcomes between transhiatal and intercostal chest drain placement following MIO, focusing on analgesia use, hospital length of stay, and postoperative pulmonary complications.

Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study of patients undergoing elective MIO at a quaternary center in Western Australia between September 2016 and September 2023. Propensity score matching was used to minimize confounding. All patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients undergoing MIO with exclusive transhiatal drainage, a 19 French Blake's drain was advanced through the hiatus into the right pleural cavity and positioned adjacent to the anastomosis.

Results: Thirty patients were included in the study, 15 of whom had exclusively transhiatal drain placement. Mean total daily oral morphine dose equivalent was significantly lower in the transhiatal drain group (58 ± 35.8 mg) compared with the intercostal drain group (100.8 ± 64.0 mg) on postoperative Day 1 (p = 0.04). No significant difference was observed in the reintervention rate (p = 1.00), length of stay (p = 0.78), or postoperative pulmonary complications (p = 1.00).

Conclusion: Transhiatal drain placement following MIO was associated with reduced opioid requirements on postoperative Day 1 and demonstrated comparable pulmonary complications and length of stay to intercostal drainage. These findings suggest that transhiatal drainage may be a safe and feasible alternative; however, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary results.

微创食管切除术后单次经食管胸腔引流的有效性:安全性和可行性的倾向评分匹配研究。
背景:在微创食管切除术(MIO)后,常规放置肋间胸腔引流仍然是常见的做法。肋间胸引流可能增加术后疼痛和发病率。本研究比较了MIO术后经口胸腔引流和肋间胸腔引流的结果,重点关注镇痛药的使用、住院时间和术后肺部并发症。方法:这是一项回顾性病例对照研究,研究对象为2016年9月至2023年9月在西澳大利亚一家第四中心接受选择性MIO手术的患者。倾向评分匹配用于最小化混淆。所有患者均从前瞻性维护的数据库中确定。接受MIO的患者单独经裂孔引流,19 French Blake引流管通过裂孔进入右胸膜腔,并放置在吻合口附近。结果:30例患者纳入研究,其中15例为专门的经食管引流。术后第1天,经肠引流组平均每日口服吗啡总当量(58±35.8 mg)明显低于肋间引流组(100.8±64.0 mg) (p = 0.04)。在再干预率(p = 1.00)、住院时间(p = 0.78)和术后肺部并发症(p = 1.00)方面无显著差异。结论:MIO术后放置经口引流与术后第1天阿片类药物需求减少有关,并显示出与肋间引流相当的肺部并发症和住院时间。这些发现表明,经口引流可能是一种安全可行的替代方案;然而,需要更大规模的前瞻性研究来证实这些初步结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ANZ Journal of Surgery
ANZ Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
720
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ANZ Journal of Surgery is published by Wiley on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons to provide a medium for the publication of peer-reviewed original contributions related to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of surgery and related disciplines. It also provides a programme of continuing education for surgeons. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信