Application of Two Ultrafine Chest Tube for Drainage after
Pulmonary Uniportal Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery.
10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2021.101.23
- Author:
Lei CHEN
1
;
Yongbing CHEN
1
;
Xuejie WU
1
;
Xing JIN
1
;
Xuejuan ZHU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Soochow University, Suzhou 215004, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Pulmonary disease;
Ultrafine chest tube;
Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery
- From:
Chinese Journal of Lung Cancer
2021;24(8):577-582
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:At present, an ultrafine chest tube combined with a traditional thick tube were often used after pulmonary uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (U-VATS). However, the thick tube was often placed in the incision, which increased the risk of poor wound healing and postoperative pain. The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility and safety of using two ultrafine chest tubes (10 F pigtail tube) for drainage after pulmonary U-VATS.
METHODS:The medical records of patients who underwent pulmonary U-VATS during June 2018 and June 2020 in the department of cardiothoracic surgery of the second affiliated hospital of Soochow university were retrospectively reviewed to compare two different drainage strategies, receiving two 10 F pigtail tubes as chest tube (group A) or one 10 F pigtail tube as lower chest tube combined with one 24 F tube as upper chest tube (group B).
RESULTS:106 patients in group A receiving two 10 F pigtail tubes during June 2019 and June 2020 and 183 patients in group B receiving one 10 F pigtail tube as lower chest tube combined with one 24 F tube as upper chest tube during June 2018 and June 2019 were included. There was no significant difference between two groups in terms of the postoperative thoracic drainage (mL) (1st: 199.54±126.56 vs 203.59±139.32, P=0.84; 2nd: 340.30±205.47 vs 349.74±230.92, P=0.76; 3rd: 435.19±311.51 vs 451.37±317.03, P=0.70; 4th: 492.58±377.33 vs 512.57±382.94, P=0.69; Total: 604.57±547.24 vs 614.64±546.08, P=0.88), drainage time (d) (upper chest tube: 2.54±2.20 vs 3.40±2.07, P=0.21; lower chest tube: (2.24±2.43 vs 3.82±2.12, P=0.10), postoperative hospital stays (d) (6.87±3.17 vs 7.06±3.21, P=0.63), poor wound healing (0 vs 3.28%, P=0.09), replacement of lower chest tube (0.94% vs 2.19%, P=0.66) and the VAS1 (3.00±0.24 vs 2.99±0.15, P=0.63). Notably, there were significant differences between two groups in terms of the VAS₂ (2.28±0.63 vs 2.92±0.59, P<0.01) and VAS₃ (2.50±1.58 vs 2.79±1.53, P=0.02), as well as the frequency of using additional analgesics (25.47% vs 38.25%, P=0.03) and replacement of the upper chest tube (0 vs 4.37%, P=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS:It's feasible and safe to use two 10 F pigtail tubes for drainage after pulmonary U-VATS, which can achieve less postoperative pain and lower frequency of replacement of the upper chest tube on some specific patients.
