Thopaz+
Digital chest drainage system. Enhanced recovery. Better outcomes1-8. Lower costs3,7,9-11.
Efficiency that transforms recovery
Proven economic value.
Mobilize early. Recover faster
Thopaz+ Digital Chest Drainage and Monitoring System
Medela Thopaz+ training for the Operating Room
Medela Thopaz+ user-specific training video for the operating room.
This video is for demonstration use only and in no way replaces the IFU.
Medela Thopaz+ technical training
Short and simple setup and training videos that will ensure you become a confident and knowledgeable Thopaz+ user.
This video is for demonstration use only and in no way replaces the IFU.
Medela Thopaz+ training for post-anesthesia care unit
Medela Thopaz+ user-specific training video for post-anesthesia care unit, intensive care unit, and ward.
This video is for demonstration use only and in no way replaces the IFU.

Disposable canisters
Available in 300ml, 800ml and 2-litre capacities to optimise drainage procedure and reduce the amount of biohazardous waste.
All three sizes are available with or without solidifier, providing a hygienic and cost-effective option for disposing of patient fluid disposal.

Tubing
The dual-lumen tubing provides continuous pressure monitoring close to the patient’s chest.
Two types of connectors are available (single or double) in small, medium or large sizes to match the chest tube being used.
All Thopaz+ tubing connectors contain a port for convenient sampling of drainage fluid.

Docking Station
The docking station for Thopaz+ generally requires one-time set up, allowing the device to be recharged without the need to handle cables and an external power adapter. Can be equipped with adapter for the 2 l canister.

Holder with Standard Rail
For the easy attachment of Thopaz+ to rails, beds or IV poles. Can be fixed vertically or horizontally.

Universal Holder with Flexible Standard Rail
For the easy attachment of Thopaz+ to rails, beds or IV poles. Infinitely variable adjustment of rail inclination (360°)

Carrying strap
The carrying strap for Thopaz+ offers the patient convenience, comfort and full mobility
Brochure Thopaz+ system PDF, 1021 KB
Instructions for use Thopaz+ PDF, 19 MB
ERAS flyer PDF, 522 KB
Clinical Guidelines for Managing Patients with Thopaz+ PDF, 1.15 MB
Healthcare accessories catalogue PDF, 2.12 MB
Install ThopEasy+ Software
Watch the videos below to find out more about the product and how best to use it

Patients discharged early reported a better recovery experience, supporting POD 1 discharge as a safe and effective strategy in selected cases.
This study evaluated the safety and recovery quality of discharging patients on postoperative day 1 (POD 1) after subxiphoid thoracoscopic anatomic lung resection within an ERAS program and a digital drainage protocol.
Among 201 patients, 56% were safely discharged on POD 1, with low complication and readmission rates. Early chest tube removal (air leak < 20 ml/min for 4h without liquid threshold) and opioid-free pain control were key factors.

Thopaz+ supports a shift toward minimal or no routine chest drain use, even for major lung surgeries, to enable faster recovery and potential same-day discharge.
New literature review explores optimal timing for chest drain removal after anatomic lung resection. It highlights that using air leak alone - measured digitally - as the main criterion allows for safe removal by postoperative day 1 in most cases.

Real-world experience with Thopaz+, the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust experience
At Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Thopaz+ has demonstrated significant clinical and operational benefits far beyond cardiothoracic surgery. Its adoption across respiratory medicine, critical care (CCU/ICU), trauma, gastroenterology, pediatrics, and neurosciences highlights its versatility and impact in managing chest drainage across diverse patient populations.
Proven clinical benefits versus traditional chest drainage systems:
1. Bauerle WB, Hamlin S, Dubois S, et al. Impact of liposomal bupivacaine on enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for lung resection. Ann Thorac Surg 2025;119(1):219-26.
2. George RS, Papagiannopoulos K. Advances in chest drain management in thoracic disease. J Thorac Dis 2016;8:S55-64.
3. Pérez-Egido L, García-Casillas MA, Simal I, et al. Digital thoracic drainage: a new system to monitor air leaks in pediatric population. J Pediatr Surg 2019;54(4):693-695.
4. Pompili C, Detterbeck F, Papagiannopoulos K, et al. Multicenter international randomized comparison of objective and subjective outcomes between electronic and traditional chest drainage systems. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;98:490–6. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
5. Mesa-Guzman M, Periklis P, Niwaz Z, et al. Determining optimal fluid and air leak cut off values for chest drain management in general thoracic surgery. J Thorac Dis 2015;7:2053-7. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
6. Evans JM, Ray A, Dale M, et al. Thopaz+ portable digital system for managing chest drains: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2019;17(3):285–94. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
7. Jacobsen K, Talbert S, Boyer JH. The benefits of digital drainage system versus traditional drainage system after robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy. J Thorac Dis 2019;11(12):5328–5335. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
8. Palleiko BA, Singh A, Strader C, et al. Clinical outcomes and staff satisfaction after adoption of digital chest drainage system for minimally invasive lung resections. J Thorac Dis 2024;16(5):2963. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
9. Patel C, Ruppert SD, Cao H, et al. Use of a Digital Air Leak Detection Device to Decrease Chest Tube Duration. Crit Care Nurse 2023;43(6):11-21. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
10. Han S, Du S, Jander C, et al. The impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for video-assisted and robotic-assisted lobectomy on surgical outcomes and costs: a retrospective single-center cohort study. J Robot Surg 2023;17(3):1039-48. (ERAS + Thopaz vs non-ERAS without Thopaz)
11. Jablonski S, Brocki M, Wawrzycki M, et al. Efficacy assessment of the drainage with permanent airflow measurement in the treatment of pneumothorax with air leak. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;62:509–15. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
12. Yagi S, Miwa H, Kono M, et al. Comparison of clinical utility between digital and analog drainage systems in patients with spontaneous pneumothorax. Resp Investig 2022;60(6):840-6. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
13. Batchelor TJP, Rasburn NJ, Abdelnour-Berchtold E, et al. Guidelines for enhanced recovery after lung surgery: recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018;doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezy301. (Digital vs analog drainage systems)
14. Yang TY, Wu CY, Hsieh MJ, et al. Association of Wearable Activity Monitors and Digital Drainage Device With Daily Ambulation and Length of Stay Among Pulmonary Resection Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study. Thoracic Cancer 2025;16(14):e70132. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
15. Rathinam S, Bradley A, Cantlin T, et al. Thopaz portable suction systems in thoracic surgery: an end user assessment and feedback in a tertiary unit. J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;6:59. (Thopaz vs traditional drainage systems)
16. Pfeuty K, Lenot B. Early postoperative day 0 chest tube removal using a digital drainage device protocol after thoracoscopic major pulmonary resection. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2020; doi:10.1093/icvts/ivaa170.
17. Khader AA, Pons A, Palmares A, et al. Are chest drains routinely required after thoracic surgery? A drainology study of on-table chest-drain removals. JTCVS open. 2023;16:960-4.
Articles that may be of interest