Cargando…

Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal‐free stitches

Surgical method improvements aim to optimize the patient experience. The problem of healing of the drainage tube hole has not received attention and is of concern because it can plague patient recovery. In this article we report on how we have improved the method of suturing the drainage tube hole a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fu, Rui, Zhang, Jia‐Tao, Dong, Song, Chen, Ying, Zhang, Chao, Tang, Wen‐Fang, Xia, Jin, Nie, Qiang, Zhong, Wen‐Zhao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6718023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31368233
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13157
_version_ 1783447665373085696
author Fu, Rui
Zhang, Jia‐Tao
Dong, Song
Chen, Ying
Zhang, Chao
Tang, Wen‐Fang
Xia, Jin
Nie, Qiang
Zhong, Wen‐Zhao
author_facet Fu, Rui
Zhang, Jia‐Tao
Dong, Song
Chen, Ying
Zhang, Chao
Tang, Wen‐Fang
Xia, Jin
Nie, Qiang
Zhong, Wen‐Zhao
author_sort Fu, Rui
collection PubMed
description Surgical method improvements aim to optimize the patient experience. The problem of healing of the drainage tube hole has not received attention and is of concern because it can plague patient recovery. In this article we report on how we have improved the method of suturing the drainage tube hole and explore the safety and effectiveness of this method. Between December 2017 to August 2018, 102 patients underwent thoracoscopic lung resection (single port or single utility port) using different methods of suturing drainage tube holes. The intervention group received improved methods with subcuticular and intradermal suture and removal‐free stitches, whilst the control group received a conventional mattress suture and fixed chest tube. A preset line was left to tie knots and close the hole after the removal of the chest tube. The stitches were removed 7–12 days after surgery. The baseline clinical features of the patients were subsequently analyzed. The objective and subjective conditions of scars were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) at one month after surgery. The intervention group (n = 71) and control group (n = 31) had balanced baseline clinical characteristics. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of three‐day postoperative pain and postoperative hospital stay. In the intervention group, three patients (4.23%) had wound splitting that required re‐suturing, which was better than five patients (16.13%) in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of pleural fluid outflow, wound infection, post‐removal pneumothorax, chest tube prolapse and incisional hernia were not different between the two groups. We conclude that the objective and subjective evaluation results of scars were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.05), and the experimental group was superior to the control group. A balanced result between aesthetic appearance and safety as regards video‐assisted thoracic surgery can be achieved through the chest tube hole improved suture method. This method also improves the patient's recovery experience.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6718023
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67180232019-09-06 Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal‐free stitches Fu, Rui Zhang, Jia‐Tao Dong, Song Chen, Ying Zhang, Chao Tang, Wen‐Fang Xia, Jin Nie, Qiang Zhong, Wen‐Zhao Thorac Cancer Brief Report Surgical method improvements aim to optimize the patient experience. The problem of healing of the drainage tube hole has not received attention and is of concern because it can plague patient recovery. In this article we report on how we have improved the method of suturing the drainage tube hole and explore the safety and effectiveness of this method. Between December 2017 to August 2018, 102 patients underwent thoracoscopic lung resection (single port or single utility port) using different methods of suturing drainage tube holes. The intervention group received improved methods with subcuticular and intradermal suture and removal‐free stitches, whilst the control group received a conventional mattress suture and fixed chest tube. A preset line was left to tie knots and close the hole after the removal of the chest tube. The stitches were removed 7–12 days after surgery. The baseline clinical features of the patients were subsequently analyzed. The objective and subjective conditions of scars were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) at one month after surgery. The intervention group (n = 71) and control group (n = 31) had balanced baseline clinical characteristics. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of three‐day postoperative pain and postoperative hospital stay. In the intervention group, three patients (4.23%) had wound splitting that required re‐suturing, which was better than five patients (16.13%) in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of pleural fluid outflow, wound infection, post‐removal pneumothorax, chest tube prolapse and incisional hernia were not different between the two groups. We conclude that the objective and subjective evaluation results of scars were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.05), and the experimental group was superior to the control group. A balanced result between aesthetic appearance and safety as regards video‐assisted thoracic surgery can be achieved through the chest tube hole improved suture method. This method also improves the patient's recovery experience. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2019-07-31 2019-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6718023/ /pubmed/31368233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13157 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Brief Report
Fu, Rui
Zhang, Jia‐Tao
Dong, Song
Chen, Ying
Zhang, Chao
Tang, Wen‐Fang
Xia, Jin
Nie, Qiang
Zhong, Wen‐Zhao
Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal‐free stitches
title Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal‐free stitches
title_full Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal‐free stitches
title_fullStr Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal‐free stitches
title_full_unstemmed Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal‐free stitches
title_short Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal‐free stitches
title_sort drainage tube hole suture improvement: removal‐free stitches
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6718023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31368233
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13157
work_keys_str_mv AT furui drainagetubeholesutureimprovementremovalfreestitches
AT zhangjiatao drainagetubeholesutureimprovementremovalfreestitches
AT dongsong drainagetubeholesutureimprovementremovalfreestitches
AT chenying drainagetubeholesutureimprovementremovalfreestitches
AT zhangchao drainagetubeholesutureimprovementremovalfreestitches
AT tangwenfang drainagetubeholesutureimprovementremovalfreestitches
AT xiajin drainagetubeholesutureimprovementremovalfreestitches
AT nieqiang drainagetubeholesutureimprovementremovalfreestitches
AT zhongwenzhao drainagetubeholesutureimprovementremovalfreestitches