ArticlePloS one2025
Intelligent surgical drainage - digitizing the analysis of drainage fluid in patients with surgical drains.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparative Analysis of 4-, 12-, and 24-hour Intervals of Drain Clamping Reduces Postoperative Blood Loss Following Posterior Spinal Surgery in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Optimizing Surgical Drain Removal: A Narrative Review of Timing, Criteria, and Evidence-Based Practices.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical drains are essential in post-operative care, where timely removal is critical to prevent complications. Early removal can result in seromas and hematomas, while delayed removal may lead to infections. Traditional manual analysis of drain output is time-consuming and often unreliable, necessitating a shift towards digital methods. This study used a compact mini-spectrometer to analyze surgical drain output quickly and non-invasively. The spectrometer operates in the 340-850 nm range with 288 discrete detection channels. A total of 528 samples were collected from 181 patients aged 0-85 years. Fourteen laboratory parameters, including albumin, amylase, bilirubin, total protein, LDH, lipase, erythrocytes, hemoglobin, and triglycerides were analyzed. Notable correlations were observed for several parameters. This study employed correlation, regression and classification analyses to investigate the relationships between various biochemical laboratory parameters in drain output and their absorption peaks at specific wavelengths. The data obtained from standard procedures in a certified central laboratory were compared with data collected using the mini-spectrometer. Significant correlations were found, particularly for hemoglobin and erythrocytes at 586 nm (r = -0.67 and r = -0.46, respectively). Hemoglobin also correlated with wavelengths at 514 nm (r = -0.62) and 557 nm (r = -0.45). Bilirubin showed peaks at 582 nm (r = 0.56) and 496 nm (r = -0.49). Regression and classification models, incorporating random effects, provided enhanced performance. The classification models effectively differentiated between pathological and non-pathological values, with hemoglobin showing an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.947 and a Balanced Accuracy (BAC) of 0.853. Triglycerides had an AUC of 0.941 and a BAC of 0.789. Models for LDH, bilirubin, and erythrocytes also achieved AUC values over 0.9, with BAC values exceeding 0.79. This study demonstrates the potential of mini-spectrometers integrated into surgical drains to improve post-operative drainage management, potentially offering faster, more reliable analyses compared to traditional methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.