A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Valve-regulated Pleural Drainage System to Traditional Closed Chest Tube Drainage

Thoracic drainage is an important adjunctive treatment following thoracic surgery, primarily aimed at removing postoperative blood, air, and exudate from the thoracic cavity. It helps maintain negative pressure in the thoracic cavity, promotes full lung expansion, and prevents pulmonary complications, especially atelectasis. In traditional closed thoracic drainage methods, a closed drainage bottle is connected by a water-sealed tube, utilizing the pressure gradient formed by the gas-liquid interface to achieve drainage. The entire process demands high requirements for medical staff, requiring regular checks for abnormal drainage fluid, observing pressure fluctuations, and adjusting the position of the drainage bottle. This process is not only cumbersome but also carries risks of infection, drainage obstruction, and water seal fluid backflow due to operational errors.

To overcome the limitations of traditional closed drainage methods, dry valve-regulated pleural drainage systems have emerged. These devices employ a one-way valve mechanism, eliminating the need for traditional water seals and fundamentally eliminating the need for water level monitoring and maintenance of drainage bottles, while reducing the potential for mechanical failures and operational errors. They exhibit significant advantages in enhancing safety, simplifying operational procedures, and reducing nursing burdens. Patients can move more freely without worrying about water seal leakage, which is crucial for early postoperative recovery.

Preliminary prospective small-sample studies have found that compared to traditional water-sealed drainage systems, dry valve-regulated drainage devices not only significantly shorten drainage time but also reduce the need for medical staff monitoring and operation, while lowering the risk of patient pulmonary air leakage and postoperative pneumothorax. However, existing evidence mainly comes from limited hospitals and small-sample studies, lacking large-scale research to support their widespread clinical application.

Based on this, the investigators plan to conduct a real-world randomized controlled study. The study will include patients undergoing lobectomy and lymph node dissection, and different drainage methods will be randomly assigned for research. The study will compare the effects of the two thoracic drainage methods on key clinical indicators such as postoperative drainage time, drainage volume, oxyhemoglobin saturation, early postoperative activity, patient comfort during recovery, and postoperative complications. Through scientific research design and statistical analysis, the goal of this study is to provide solid evidence based on evidence-based medicine for the optimal practice of thoracic drainage, further optimize post-thoracic surgery drainage treatment protocols, and enhance the quality and efficiency of patient care.