Search

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the immediate influence of chest tube removal on chest pain and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) after pulmonary resection. METHODS Prospective longitudinal investigation on 104 consecutive patients (53 wedge/segmentectomies and 51 lobectomies; 69 muscle and nerve-sparing lateral thoracotomy and 35 video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)). Post-operative chest pain was controlled in all patients by a standardized combination of oral and intravenous non-opioid analgesics. All patients had one chest tube (24 French). Static and dynamic (after forced expiratory effort) pain and FEV1 were assessed before and 1 h after the chest tube removal by the same operator. No additional analgesics were administered before or after the chest tube removal. The pain level was assessed by the numeric pain scale [range: 0 (no pain)–10 (excruciating pain)]. FEV1 was assessed by a portable spirometer. Bronchodilators were not used in these patients. Pre- and post-removal measurements were compared by the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS The average pre-removal static and dynamic pain scores were 2.6 and 4.1, respectively. The static and dynamic pain scores decreased by 42 and 41%, respectively, after the tube removal (P < 0.0001). The average FEV1 before the chest tube removal was 1.5 l or 53% of the predicted value and increased by 13% after the tube removal (P = 0.0004). In total, 56 and 78% of patients reported static and dynamic pain scores improvement and 67% showed an FEV1 improvement after the chest tube removal. Similar results were observed in patients operated on through VATS or thoracotomy. Compared with patients whose chest tube was removed later, those who had their chest tube removed before post operative day 3 (POD3), showed a greater reduction in the static pain score (41 vs. 31%, P = 0.05) and greater improvement in FEV1 (18 vs. 0.01%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS The removal of a chest tube reduces pain and improves ventilatory function, independent of surgical access and particularly in the early post-operative phase. A fast track chest tube removal policy may favour patients' recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES The aim of the present study was to verify whether the implementation of an electronic health record (EHR) in our thoracic surgery unit allows creation of a high-quality clinical database saving time and costs. METHODS Before August 2011, multiple individuals compiled the on-paper documents/records and a single data manager inputted selected data into the database (traditional database, tDB). Since the adoption of an EHR in August 2011, multiple individuals have been responsible for compiling the EHR, which automatically generates a real-time database (EHR-based database, eDB), without the need for a data manager. During the initial period of implementation of the EHR, periodic meetings were held with all physicians involved in the use of the EHR in order to monitor and standardize the data registration process. Data quality of the first 100 anatomical lung resections recorded in the eDB was assessed by measuring the total number of missing values (MVs: existing non-reported value) and inaccurate values (wrong data) occurring in 95 core variables. The average MV of the eDB was compared with the one occurring in the same variables of the last 100 records registered in the tDB. RESULTS The tDB and eDB had similar MVs (0.74 vs 1, P = 0.13). The learning curve showed an initial phase including about 35 records, where MV in the eDB was higher than that in the tDB (1.9 vs 0.74, P = 0.03), and a subsequent phase, where the MV was similar in the two databases (0.7 vs 0.74, P = 0.6). The inaccuracy rate of these two phases in the eDB was stable (0.5 vs 0.3, P = 0.3). Using EHR saved an average of 9 min per patient, totalling 15 h saved for obtaining a dataset of 100 patients with respect to the tDB. CONCLUSION The implementation of EHR allowed streamlining the process of clinical data recording. It saved time and human resource costs, without compromising the quality of data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]