Skip to main content
Thorax logoLink to Thorax
. 1999 May;54(5):442–443. doi: 10.1136/thx.54.5.442

A physiological comparison of flutter valve drainage bags and underwater seal systems for postoperative air leaks

D Waller 1, J Edwards 1, P Rajesh 1
PMCID: PMC1763778  PMID: 10212112

Abstract

BACKGROUND—A study was undertaken to compare the relative physiological effects of underwater seal (UWS) versus flutter valve (FV) pleural drainage systems in the treatment of postoperative air leaks.
METHOD—Fourteen patients with air leaks of 1-11 days duration, following lobectomy (n = 5), bullectomy (n = 4), decortication (n= 4), and pleural biopsy (n = 1) were analysed. Intrapleural pressure (IPP) measurements were made using an in-line external strain gauge connected directly to the intercostal tube. Patients were connected simultaneously to both UWS and FV drainage systems and pressures were measured sequentially, isolating each system in turn. Maximum (IPPmax) and minimum (IPPmin) intrapleural pressures were calculated from graphic traces. The degree of lung expansion was recorded by chest radiography.
RESULTS—At resting tidal volume IPPmax was significantly higher with the UWS system (mean difference 0.8 mm Hg, 95% CI 0 to 1.6, p= 0.046) and IPPmin was significantly lower with the FV system (1.8 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.3 to 3.3, p = 0.023). The lung was fully expanded in 50% of patients at the time of study. The mean difference in IPPmin between systems was significantly increased when the lung was fully expanded (mean 2.8 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.1 to 5.5, p= 0.042). The mean difference in IPPmax was not affected by the degree of lung expansion (0.79, 95% CI -0.83 to 2.4, p = 0.31).
CONCLUSION—The results of this study suggest that, when postoperative air leak exists without a persistent pleural space, the flutter valve may provide a physiologically more effective alternative to the underwater seal drainage system.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (65.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Gordon P. A., Norton J. M., Guerra J. M., Perdue S. T. Positioning of chest tubes: effects on pressure and drainage. Am J Crit Care. 1997 Jan;6(1):33–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Graham A. N., Cosgrove A. P., Gibbons J. R., McGuigan J. A. Randomised clinical trial of chest drainage systems. Thorax. 1992 Jun;47(6):461–462. doi: 10.1136/thx.47.6.461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. McKenna R. J., Jr, Fischel R. J., Brenner M., Gelb A. F. Use of the Heimlich valve to shorten hospital stay after lung reduction surgery for emphysema. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996 Apr;61(4):1115–1117. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(96)00034-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. McManus K. G., Spence G. M., McGuigan J. A. Outpatient chest tubes. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998 Jul;66(1):299–300. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(98)00456-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Munnell E. R. Thoracic drainage. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997 May;63(5):1497–1502. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(97)00082-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Thorax are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES