Qiuyuan Li1, Alan Sihoe1,2, Haifeng Wang1, Diego Gonzalez-Rivas1,3,4, Yuming Zhu1, Dong Xie1, Gening Jiang1. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital Tongji University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Hospital, Hong Kong, China. 3. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Coruña University Hospital, Coruña, Spain. 4. Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery Unit (UCTMI), Coruña University Hospital, Coruña, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although there is growing interest in single-port video-assisted thoracic surgery for a number of thoracic operations, there is still not enough known about its use for mediastinal pathologies. The present study was aimed at assessing the safety and efficacy of single-port video-assisted thoracic surgery in comparison with the multi-port variants in terms of short-term perioperative outcomes. METHODS: From July 2013 to December 2015, 285 consecutive non-myasthenic adult patients undergoing single- or multi-port video-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal diseases including thymoma were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified depending on whether the pathology was thymoma. A propensity score matching pertaining to the approach used was performed within each stratified category. Perioperative outcomes were compared between matched cohorts. RESULTS: During the study period, 141 (49.5%) patients were treated with single-port thoracoscopic surgery. Preoperative variables were comparable between both pairs of cohorts after matching. No morbidity or mortality occurred, except 1 case of empyema in a 2-port case. Single-port technique exhibited shorter operation time (thymoma: 78.8 vs 120.0 min, P = 0.011; non-thymoma: 78.4 vs 107.9 min, P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (thymoma: 42.0 vs 78.4 ml, P = 0.002; non-thymoma: 46.0 vs 62.2 ml, P = 0.001) and a lower postoperative 10-point visual analogue scale pain score (thymoma: 2.6 vs 3.3, P = 0.026; non-thymoma: 2.4 vs 3.2, P < 0.001) than multi-port techniques in both patient categories. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port video-assisted thoracic surgery is a safe approach for patients with loco-regional mediastinal disease, with potential advantages of shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding and less postoperative pain when compared with multi-port techniques.
OBJECTIVES: Although there is growing interest in single-port video-assisted thoracic surgery for a number of thoracic operations, there is still not enough known about its use for mediastinal pathologies. The present study was aimed at assessing the safety and efficacy of single-port video-assisted thoracic surgery in comparison with the multi-port variants in terms of short-term perioperative outcomes. METHODS: From July 2013 to December 2015, 285 consecutive non-myasthenic adult patients undergoing single- or multi-port video-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal diseases including thymoma were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified depending on whether the pathology was thymoma. A propensity score matching pertaining to the approach used was performed within each stratified category. Perioperative outcomes were compared between matched cohorts. RESULTS: During the study period, 141 (49.5%) patients were treated with single-port thoracoscopic surgery. Preoperative variables were comparable between both pairs of cohorts after matching. No morbidity or mortality occurred, except 1 case of empyema in a 2-port case. Single-port technique exhibited shorter operation time (thymoma: 78.8 vs 120.0 min, P = 0.011; non-thymoma: 78.4 vs 107.9 min, P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (thymoma: 42.0 vs 78.4 ml, P = 0.002; non-thymoma: 46.0 vs 62.2 ml, P = 0.001) and a lower postoperative 10-point visual analogue scale pain score (thymoma: 2.6 vs 3.3, P = 0.026; non-thymoma: 2.4 vs 3.2, P < 0.001) than multi-port techniques in both patient categories. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port video-assisted thoracic surgery is a safe approach for patients with loco-regional mediastinal disease, with potential advantages of shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding and less postoperative pain when compared with multi-port techniques.