Pediatric pulmonology · 2025
Comparative Analysis of Analog and Digital Chest Tube Drainage Systems Using a High-Fidelity 3D-Printed Neonatal Chest Model.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Anzinger F-X, Hashagen T J, Palaniappan P, Lindner A, Riboldi M, Gödeke J, Muensterer O J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In recent years, digital chest tube drainage systems have been introduced. Limited studies address their benefits and risks in pediatric patients, particularly neonates. This study compares a three-chamber chest drainage system with a digital system using a high-fidelity 3D-printed model.
METHODS: We conducted direct measurements and 3D-printed model tests with both systems at different suction pressures (-1 to -20 cmH2O) to assess the actual pressures. The effects of siphon and automatic flushes in the digital system were also studied.
RESULTS: At -20 and -10 cmH2O, significant differences were found between the digital and analog systems in direct and model measurements. The analog system became unreliable below -10 cmH2O. For the digital system, most measurements remained within the set pressures, with outliers up to -30 cmH2O due to regular flushing.
CONCLUSION: This experimental study evaluates the suitability of digital drainage systems for the pediatric and neonatal populations. Our model demonstrated reliable simulation of thoracic conditions, making it a useful tool for pre-clinical testing where patient testing may be limited. Both systems yielded satisfactory results at -20 and -10 cmH2O, but the digital system showed greater flexibility, maintaining pressures as low as -5 cmH2O. The analog system was consistent but less adaptable, which may limit its use in dynamic situations. The digital system's ability to simulate more flexible scenarios offers potential clinical advantages, though further investigation is needed to assess its impact on neonatal safety. The increase in suction during flushing may pose a risk for neonatal patients.
METHODS: We conducted direct measurements and 3D-printed model tests with both systems at different suction pressures (-1 to -20 cmH2O) to assess the actual pressures. The effects of siphon and automatic flushes in the digital system were also studied.
RESULTS: At -20 and -10 cmH2O, significant differences were found between the digital and analog systems in direct and model measurements. The analog system became unreliable below -10 cmH2O. For the digital system, most measurements remained within the set pressures, with outliers up to -30 cmH2O due to regular flushing.
CONCLUSION: This experimental study evaluates the suitability of digital drainage systems for the pediatric and neonatal populations. Our model demonstrated reliable simulation of thoracic conditions, making it a useful tool for pre-clinical testing where patient testing may be limited. Both systems yielded satisfactory results at -20 and -10 cmH2O, but the digital system showed greater flexibility, maintaining pressures as low as -5 cmH2O. The analog system was consistent but less adaptable, which may limit its use in dynamic situations. The digital system's ability to simulate more flexible scenarios offers potential clinical advantages, though further investigation is needed to assess its impact on neonatal safety. The increase in suction during flushing may pose a risk for neonatal patients.