{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.052664576802507836, 'fraction_numerical': 0.05454545454545454, 'mean_word_length': 4.373737373737374, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of maximum force to failure of 4 thoracostomy tube connecting devices*

OBJECTIVE
To compare the maximum force and displacement to failure of 4 different types of thoracostomy tube connecting devices.


STUDY DESIGN
Experimental in vitro study.


STUDY POPULATION
Four types of thoracostomy tube connecting devices (n = 10 each).


METHODS
Four different connecting device configurations (10 constructs each) were tested by maximum distraction to failure using a dynamometer: (1) CTTWW-a 3-way connector with a male luer slip attached to a thoracostomy tube by a Christmas tree adapter and secured to the tube with 21 gauge orthopedic wire; (2) CTTWRCW-a 3-way connector with a male luer lock with a rotating collar attached to a tube by a Christmas tree adapter and secured to the tube with 21 gauge orthopedic wire; (3) LVSBC-a Lopez valve attached to a tube with its short-barbed connector; and (4) LVLBC-a Lopez valve attached to a tube with its long-barbed connector.


RESULTS
The maximum distraction force to failure was significantly greater for CTTWRCW (250.9 N; range 143.7-293.6) than CTTWW (132.9 N; range 84.2-224.1), LVLBC (90.8 N; range 74.0-123.4), and LVSBC (54.6 N; range 39.6-164.2). The median displacement to failure of CTTWRCW (150 mm; range 54-190) was significantly longer than that of CTTWW (34.5 mm; range 22-70), LVLBC (32.5 mm; range 24-57), and LVSBC (16 mm; range 11-69).


CONCLUSION
The CTTWRCW group required greater force to create failure and had a longer displacement to failure, making it a more secure choice for connection to thoracostomy tubes.