Comparison of the Clinical Effect of Uniportal Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy and Biportal Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy in the Treatment of Lung Cancer

• Main Authors: Weifeng XU, Chun XU, Cheng DING, Jun CHEN, Wenyi WANG, Jun ZHAO, Chang LI
• Format: Article
• Language: zho
• Published: Chinese Anti-Cancer Association; Chinese Antituberculosis Association 2020-07-01
• Series: Chinese Journal of Lung Cancer
• Subjects: uniport; video-assisted thoracoscopic; biport; lung neoplasms
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2020.101.23

Background and objective In recent years, the technique of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has been developed. As a new surgical method, its feasibility and safety have not been generally recognized. The aim of this study is to review the technology in the treatment of lung cancer patients in stage I to part of stage IIIa. Methods The clinical data of patients accepted thoracoscopic resection of lung cancer by a same medical group from May 2018 to March 2019 in The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University were retrospectively analyzed. After remove of cases that did not meet the requirements, the patients were divided into uniportal group (55 cases) and biportal group (87 cases). The clinical data of the two groups were collected and statistically analyzed. Results All the 142 patients underwent lobectomy and systemic lymph node dissection. There is no perioperative death in both groups. There was no significant difference in age, location of tumors, pathological type, size of tumors and pathological tumor-node-metastasis (pTNM) staging between uniportal group and biportal group (P>0.05). The operation time [(167.65±43.85) min vs (181.71±51.28) min], the intraoperative bleeding volume [(57.45±50.19) mL vs (87.47±132.54) mL], the indwelling time of drainage tube [(4.82±2.82) d vs (5.84±3.43) d] and the hospital stay [(6.91±3.88) d vs (7.74±3.87) d] were less in uiportal group compared to biportal group, though no significant difference occurred (P>0.05 ). The total drainage volume of uniportal group was significantly lower than that of biportal group [(1,064.82±776.38) mL vs (1,658.71±1,722.38) mL], and the visual analogue score of 24 hours and 72 hours after operation [(4.73±0.73) points vs (5.25±0.74) points; (2.16±0.71) points vs (2.55±0.86) points] were lower in uniportal group (P<0.05). Conclusion Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer is safe and feasible for stage I to part of stage IIIa lung cancer patients.