Clinical trial · Interventional
A Study to Evaluate Routine Chest Tube Management After Minimally Invasive Lung Surgery
Study to Evaluate a Low Suction (LS) Versus Standard Suction (SS) Strategy for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Lung Resection by VATS or Robotic Approach
- Source
- ClinicalTrials.gov
- Retrieved
- Sep 8, 2026
- Layer
- normalized (units and labels harmonized; values unchanged)
- Run
- ING-CLINICALTRIALS-20260908-000001
Summary
Brief summary (as posted)
Chest tubes are routinely required after surgical procedures for lung cancer. This device is a flexible plastic tube that is inserted through the chest wall to remove air or fluid from around your lungs after surgery for lung cancer. There are two general strategies associated with the clinical management of chest tubes, active and passive suction. If suction is compared to driving a car, active suction is similar to pressing the gas pedal while passive suction is like letting your car move on its own. The suction approach taken by surgeons largely depends on how they were trained and some personal biases and beliefs. However there is no general consensus about which chest tube management strategy is best. This research aims to compare two settings on a digital drainage system, a low suction (LS) mode - passive suction - and standard suction (ss) mode - active suction. From the data collected, the researchers will analyze whether LS or SS will lead to a better recovery after surgery.
Conditions
Conditions (1)
Free-text conditions as registered, with the CancerIndex entity they were reconciled to and the match type.
| Condition (as posted) | Mapped entity | Match | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lung Cancer | Malignant Lung Neoplasm | CURATED_EXACT | 0.92 |
Interventions
Interventions (2)
| Intervention | Type | Mapped drug | Match |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Suction Strategy of Chest Tube Management | Other | — | UNRESOLVED |
| Standard Suction Strategy of Chest Tube Management | Other | — | UNRESOLVED |
Design
Arms and outcomes
Arms (2)
- type
- OTHER
- label
- Low Suction Strategy of Chest Tube Management
- interventionNames
- Other: Low Suction Strategy of Chest Tube Management
- type
- OTHER
- label
- Standard Suction Strategy of Chest Tube Management
- interventionNames
- Other: Standard Suction Strategy of Chest Tube Management
Primary outcomes (1)
- measure
- Duration of air-leak
- timeFrame
- When the subject arrives to the recovery room directly after surgery, then every 24 hours while admitted to the hospital until air leak resolves (on average, up to 4 days)
- description
- Days
Secondary outcomes (5)
Eligibility
Eligibility (as posted)
- Sex
- All
- Minimum age
- 18 Years
Show eligibility criteria text
Inclusion Criteria: 1. Patients who are undergoing lobectomy or segmentectomy 2. Patients undergoing wedge resection to diagnose, or as definitive therapy for a lung nodule/cancer. 3. Able to understand and sign consent Exclusion Criteria: 1. Patients undergoing pneumonectomy or bilobectomy 2. Patients undergoing resection for inflammatory conditions such as aspergillosis 3. Patients undergoing diagnostic wedge resection for interstitial lung disease 4. Patients undergoing redo-VATS or thoracotomy on the same side as current planned resection 5. Patients found to have a "frozen chest" at the time of surgery, requiring extensive adhesiolysis, 6. Patients who are discovered to have metastatic disease during the operation, so that resection is no longer indicated. 7. Patients where a clinical decision to place more than one chest-tube is made
References
Publications (9)
- RESULTMayor MA, Khandhar SJ, Chandy J, Fernando HC. Implementing a thoracic enhanced recovery with ambulation after surgery program: key aspects and challenges. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Nov;10(Suppl 32):S3809-S3814. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.10.106. PMID 30505568
- RESULTBatchelor TJP, Rasburn NJ, Abdelnour-Berchtold E, Brunelli A, Cerfolio RJ, Gonzalez M, Ljungqvist O, Petersen RH, Popescu WM, Slinger PD, Naidu B. Guidelines for enhanced recovery after lung surgery: recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(R)) Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Jan 1;55(1):91-115. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy301. PMID 30304509
- RESULTCerfolio RJ, Bass C, Katholi CR. Prospective randomized trial compares suction versus water seal for air leaks. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001 May;71(5):1613-7. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(01)02474-2. PMID 11383809
- RESULTMarshall MB, Deeb ME, Bleier JI, Kucharczuk JC, Friedberg JS, Kaiser LR, Shrager JB. Suction vs water seal after pulmonary resection: a randomized prospective study. Chest. 2002 Mar;121(3):831-5. doi: 10.1378/chest.121.3.831. PMID 11888968
- RESULTCerfolio RJ, Bryant AS. The benefits of continuous and digital air leak assessment after elective pulmonary resection: a prospective study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Aug;86(2):396-401. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.04.016. PMID 18640304
- RESULTPompili C, Detterbeck F, Papagiannopoulos K, Sihoe A, Vachlas K, Maxfield MW, Lim HC, Brunelli A. Multicenter international randomized comparison of objective and subjective outcomes between electronic and traditional chest drainage systems. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Aug;98(2):490-6; discussion 496-7. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.03.043. Epub 2014 Jun 4. PMID 24906602
- RESULTBrunelli A, Salati M, Pompili C, Refai M, Sabbatini A. Regulated tailored suction vs regulated seal: a prospective randomized trial on air leak duration. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 May;43(5):899-904. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs518. Epub 2012 Sep 28.