Comparison of the immediate postoperative outcome of using the conventional two drains versus a single drain after lobectomy

Background We compared the immediate postoperative outcome and cost-effectiveness of using a single chest drain in the midposition to the conventional apical and basal drains after lobectomy. Methods Of the 120 consecutive patients who underwent thoracotomy and lobectomy for lung cancer at our center between January 2001 and December 2002, 60 had the conventional 28 French apical and basal drains (group A), whereas the remaining 60 had a single 28 French chest drain placed in the midposition before closure (group B). The assessed outcomes included length of stay, amount and duration of drainage, subcutaneous emphysema, postremoval hemothorax and pneumothorax, drain reinsertion, patient controlled analgesia duration, maximum pain scores, and analgesic usage. Results Both groups matched in terms of age (group A vs group B mean, 65 years old vs 66 years old, respectively; p = not significant [NS]) and gender (M:F, 4:1 for group A vs 4:1 for group B). There was no significant difference in the length of stay (mean, 7.7 days for group A vs 7.8 days for group B; p = NS), amount of drainage (mean, 667 mL for group A vs 804 mL for group B; p = NS), duration of drainage (mean, 4 days for group A vs 4.3 days for group B; p = NS), duration of patient controlled analgesia (mean, 3.7 days for group A vs 4.2 days for group B; p = NS) and analgesic combinations used (nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs ± oral opioids ± paracetamol) between the two groups. There were no clinically significant postdrain removals of hemothorax or pneumothorax in either group. Group A patients had a significantly higher maximum pain score compared with group B patients (mean, 1.4 vs 1.02, respectively; p = 0.02). Cost savings per patient in group B was more than or equal to $55, which added up to a total cost savings of approximately more than or equal to $3,300. Conclusions A single chest drain in the midposition is just as effective, significantly less painful, and much more cost effective than the conventional use of two drains after lobectomy.