Comparison of Suction Versus Nonsuction Drainage After Lung Resections: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sufficiently large, prospective randomized trials comparing suction drainage and nonsuction drainage are lacking. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of suction drainage and nonsuction drainage on the postoperative course in patients who have undergone lung resection. METHODS: This prospective, randomized trial included patients undergoing different types of lung resections. On the day of surgery, suction drainage at -20 cm H2O was used. On the morning of the first postoperative day, patients, in whom the pulmonary parenchyma was fully reexpanded, were randomized in the ratio of 1:1. Patients assigned to group A continued with suction drainage, while those assigned to group B underwent nonsuction drainage. RESULTS: The study included 254 patients, with 127 patients in each group. The drainage volumes were 1098.8 mL and 814.4 mL in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.0014). The times to chest tube removal were 5.61 days and 4.49 days in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.0014). Prolonged air leakage occurred in 5.55% of patients in group A and in 0.7% of patients in group B (p = 0.032), and asymptomatic residual air spaces were noted in 0.8% of patients in group A and 9.4% of patients in group B (p = 0.0018). CONCLUSIONS: Nonsuction drainage is more effective than suction drainage with regard to drainage volume, drainage duration, and incidence of persistent air leakage. However, it is associated with a higher incidence of asymptomatic residual air spaces.