Fahmi H Kakamad, Bnar J Hama Amin, Abdulwahid M Salih, Shvan H Mohammed, Hiwa O Baba, Gasha S Ahmed, Soran H Tahir, Rawezh Q Salih, Berun A Abdalla, Dahat H Hussein, Suhaib H Kakamad, Hussein M Hamasalih, Mohammed Subhan Mohammed
{"title":"单孔电视胸腔镜肺叶切除术中胸腔引流与单独切口:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Fahmi H Kakamad, Bnar J Hama Amin, Abdulwahid M Salih, Shvan H Mohammed, Hiwa O Baba, Gasha S Ahmed, Soran H Tahir, Rawezh Q Salih, Berun A Abdalla, Dahat H Hussein, Suhaib H Kakamad, Hussein M Hamasalih, Mohammed Subhan Mohammed","doi":"10.1097/MS9.0000000000003233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study explores whether using a separate incision for pleural drainage will yield superior results compared to inserting a chest drain through the utility incision in patients with operable lung cancer undergoing single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which one is the best?! Inserting the drain through the utility incision or separate incision in a single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a randomized, open-label, superiority trial including patients with bronchogenic carcinoma who underwent a single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy over a 32-month period. The primary outcome was wound infections and postoperative pain, while the secondary outcomes were the duration of hospitalization and return to work.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 89 patients, and 80 patients completed the trial. The mean age was 65.35 ± 9.47 years, 64 (80%) patients were male, and 69 (86.25%) patients had a 0 ECOG score. Eleven patients (13.75%) had a score of 1. The majority of the patients (35%) were in stage IIIA. There was a small but statistically significant difference in return to work when comparing group A with group B (34 ± 6 vs 31 ± 4 days, <i>P</i> = 0.038). More important were the differences in patients with wound discharge (29 vs 4; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and especially the need for intravenous antibiotic treatment (12 vs 1; <i>P</i> < 0.002). There was only a minimal trend for a decrease in the duration of hospitalization. There was no significant difference in postoperative pain scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inserting the chest drain through a separate incision has superior results compared to inserting it through the utility incision in patients with operable lung cancer undergoing single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. However, more studies with a larger sample size are necessary to confirm these results.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>The research was registered in the Research Registry. The registration number is researchregistry8426. The link is https://www.researchregistry.com/register-now#home/?view_2_search=researchregistry8426&view_2_page=1.</p>","PeriodicalId":8025,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Medicine and Surgery","volume":"87 6","pages":"3215-3220"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140783/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chest drain through utility vs separate incision in single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Fahmi H Kakamad, Bnar J Hama Amin, Abdulwahid M Salih, Shvan H Mohammed, Hiwa O Baba, Gasha S Ahmed, Soran H Tahir, Rawezh Q Salih, Berun A Abdalla, Dahat H Hussein, Suhaib H Kakamad, Hussein M Hamasalih, Mohammed Subhan Mohammed\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MS9.0000000000003233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study explores whether using a separate incision for pleural drainage will yield superior results compared to inserting a chest drain through the utility incision in patients with operable lung cancer undergoing single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which one is the best?! Inserting the drain through the utility incision or separate incision in a single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a randomized, open-label, superiority trial including patients with bronchogenic carcinoma who underwent a single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy over a 32-month period. The primary outcome was wound infections and postoperative pain, while the secondary outcomes were the duration of hospitalization and return to work.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 89 patients, and 80 patients completed the trial. The mean age was 65.35 ± 9.47 years, 64 (80%) patients were male, and 69 (86.25%) patients had a 0 ECOG score. Eleven patients (13.75%) had a score of 1. The majority of the patients (35%) were in stage IIIA. There was a small but statistically significant difference in return to work when comparing group A with group B (34 ± 6 vs 31 ± 4 days, <i>P</i> = 0.038). More important were the differences in patients with wound discharge (29 vs 4; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and especially the need for intravenous antibiotic treatment (12 vs 1; <i>P</i> < 0.002). There was only a minimal trend for a decrease in the duration of hospitalization. There was no significant difference in postoperative pain scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inserting the chest drain through a separate incision has superior results compared to inserting it through the utility incision in patients with operable lung cancer undergoing single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. However, more studies with a larger sample size are necessary to confirm these results.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>The research was registered in the Research Registry. The registration number is researchregistry8426. The link is https://www.researchregistry.com/register-now#home/?view_2_search=researchregistry8426&view_2_page=1.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Medicine and Surgery\",\"volume\":\"87 6\",\"pages\":\"3215-3220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140783/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Medicine and Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000003233\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Medicine and Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000003233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本研究探讨在可手术肺癌患者行单通孔胸腔镜肺叶切除术时,采用单独切口胸腔引流是否比通过通孔切口胸腔引流效果更好。研究问题:哪一个是最好的?在单通孔胸腔镜肺叶切除术中,通过通孔切口或单独切口插入引流管。材料和方法:这是一项随机、开放标签、优势试验,纳入了32个月的支气管源性癌患者,这些患者接受了单通气道电视胸腔镜肺叶切除术。主要结局是伤口感染和术后疼痛,次要结局是住院时间和重返工作岗位。结果:共纳入89例患者,80例患者完成试验。平均年龄65.35±9.47岁,男性64例(80%),ECOG评分为0的69例(86.25%)。11例(13.75%)患者得分为1分。大多数患者(35%)处于IIIA期。a组与B组复工时间比较,差异有统计学意义(34±6 vs 31±4,P = 0.038)。更重要的是伤口排出患者的差异(29 vs 4;P < 0.001),尤其需要静脉注射抗生素治疗(12 vs 1;P < 0.002)。住院时间只有很小的减少趋势。术后疼痛评分差异无统计学意义。结论:在可手术肺癌行单孔胸腔镜肺叶切除术的患者中,通过单独切口插入胸腔引流液比通过实用切口插入胸腔引流液效果更好。然而,需要更多更大样本量的研究来证实这些结果。临床试验注册:本研究已在研究注册中心注册。注册号是researchregistry8426。链接是https://www.researchregistry.com/register-now#home/?view_2_search=researchregistry8426&view_2_page=1。
Chest drain through utility vs separate incision in single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Background: This study explores whether using a separate incision for pleural drainage will yield superior results compared to inserting a chest drain through the utility incision in patients with operable lung cancer undergoing single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy.
Research question: Which one is the best?! Inserting the drain through the utility incision or separate incision in a single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer.
Materials and methods: This was a randomized, open-label, superiority trial including patients with bronchogenic carcinoma who underwent a single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy over a 32-month period. The primary outcome was wound infections and postoperative pain, while the secondary outcomes were the duration of hospitalization and return to work.
Results: The study included 89 patients, and 80 patients completed the trial. The mean age was 65.35 ± 9.47 years, 64 (80%) patients were male, and 69 (86.25%) patients had a 0 ECOG score. Eleven patients (13.75%) had a score of 1. The majority of the patients (35%) were in stage IIIA. There was a small but statistically significant difference in return to work when comparing group A with group B (34 ± 6 vs 31 ± 4 days, P = 0.038). More important were the differences in patients with wound discharge (29 vs 4; P < 0.001) and especially the need for intravenous antibiotic treatment (12 vs 1; P < 0.002). There was only a minimal trend for a decrease in the duration of hospitalization. There was no significant difference in postoperative pain scores.
Conclusions: Inserting the chest drain through a separate incision has superior results compared to inserting it through the utility incision in patients with operable lung cancer undergoing single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. However, more studies with a larger sample size are necessary to confirm these results.
Clinical trial registration: The research was registered in the Research Registry. The registration number is researchregistry8426. The link is https://www.researchregistry.com/register-now#home/?view_2_search=researchregistry8426&view_2_page=1.