English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have compared the efficacy of digital chest drainage system versus traditional chest drainage system. However, the results were inconsistent.    Methods  We searched the Web of Science and Pubmed for observational studies and RCTs that compared the effect of digital chest drainage system with traditional chest drainage system after pulmonary resection. Eight studies (5 randomized control trails and 3 observational studies) comprising 1487 patients met the eligibility criteria.    Results  Compared with the traditional chest drainage system, digital chest drainage system reduced the risk of prolonged air leak (PAL) (RR = 0.54, 95%CI 0.40–0.73,  p  < 0.0001), and shortened the duration of chest drainage (SMD = − 0.35, 95%CI -0.60 - -0.09,  p  = 0.008) and length of hospital stay (SMD = − 0.35, 95%CI -0.61 - -0.09,  p  = 0.007) in patients after pulmonary resection.    Conclusions  Digital chest drainage system is expected to benefit patients to attain faster recovery and higher life quality as well as to reduce the risk of postoperative complications. Further RCTs with larger sample size are still needed to more clearly elucidate the advantages of digital chest drainage system.

Digital chest drainage system versus traditional chest drainage system after pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis