Clinical outcomes and staff satisfaction after adoption of digital chest drainage system for minimally invasive lung resections.

Background: Digital chest drainage systems (DCDS) provide reliable pleural drainage while quantifying fluid output and air leak. However, the benefits of DCDS in the contemporary era of minimally invasive thoracic surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have not been fully investigated. Additionally, hospital and resident staff experiences after implementation of a DCDS have not been fully explored. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and hospital staff experience after adoption of a DCDS for minimally invasive lung resections.
Methods: A single-center retrospective review of patients who underwent minimally invasive lung resection (lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection) and received a DCDS from 11/1/2021 to 11/1/2022. DCDS patients were compared to sequential historical controls (3/1/2019-6/30/2021) who received a analog chest drainage system. For the analog system, chest tubes were removed when no bubbles were observed in the water seal compartment with Valsalva, cough, and in variable positions. With a DCDS, chest tubes were removed when the air leak was less than 30 cc/min for 8 hours, with no spikes. All patients followed an institutional ERAS protocol. Primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and chest tube duration. Hospital staff and residents were surveyed regarding their experience.
Results: One hundred and twenty-four patients received DCDS, and 248 received an analog chest drainage system. There was a reduction in mean LOS (3.6 vs . 4.4 days, P=0.01) and chest tube duration (2.7 vs . 3.6 days, P=0.03) in the DCDS group. Hospital staff (n=77, 46% response rate) reported the DCDS easier to use (60%, P<0.001) and easier to care for patients with (65%, P<0.001) compared to the analog system. Surgical residents (n=28, 56% response rate) reported increased confidence in interpretation of air leak (75%, P<0.001) and decision-making surrounding chest tube removal (79%, P<0.001).
Conclusions: Using a DCDS can reduce LOS and chest tube duration in the contemporary setting of minimally invasive lung resections and ERAS protocols. Increased confidence of resident decision-making for chest tube removal may contribute to improved outcomes.
Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-23-1747/coif). M.W.M. received lecture fees from Intuitive Surgical, unrelated to the content of this manuscript. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
(2024 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)