A small-sized tube versus traditional closed thoracic drainage in uniportal thoracoscopic surgery

Abstract

Introduction To assess the feasibility and safety of placing a small-sized tube as drainage in patients after uniportal thoracoscopic lung resection. Patients and Methods Patients who received uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (U-VATS) lung resection were identified in our database. Patients placed small-sized tube drainage were compared with those placed conventional chest tube in terms of characteristics, operation modality, post-operative pulmonary complications, post-operative pain, chest tube duration and post-operative hospital stay. Propensity score matching was performed. Results Of the 217 enrolled patients, 173 were assigned to the conventional tube group and 44 were assigned to the small-sized tube group. Rates of post-operative pulmonary complications were relatively low and similar between the two groups. After propensity score matching, operation duration was shorter (1 h vs. 1.21 h, P = 0.01) was shorter, and the maximum value of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score after operation (1 vs. 1.5, P = 0.02) and the overall average value of VAS score after operation (0.33 vs. 0.88, P = 0.006) was lower in small-sized tube group. No significant difference was observed in chest tube duration (2 vs. 2, P = 0.34) and post-operative hospital stay (3 vs. 3, P = 0.34). Conclusions Compared to conventional chest tubes, small-sized tubes for post-operative drainage after U-VATS lung resection may be a safe and promising approach for reducing post-operative pain.

Keywords

• chest tube
• hospital stay
• lung resection
• post-operative pain
• video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery