A prospective study comparing three-port video-assisted thoracoscopy with the single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) port and instruments for the video thoracoscopic approach: a pilot study

Abstract

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has proved its advantages in several procedures, mainly a shorter hospital stay, improved aesthetic results, and less postoperative pain. The authors have used this approach for several thoracic surgical procedures.

Methods

This prospective study compared 20 cases between standard three-port video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and the single-incision approach using a standard abdominal SILS system. In both groups, postsurgical analgesia was provided with 15 ml of bupivacaine 0.5% at 3 h intervals via a paravertebral catheter. The hospital length of stay and chest drain duration (in hours) were recorded as well as postoperative pain using an analogic visual pain scale (AVPS). A telephone survey was conducted for all the outpatients. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis.

Results

This study of 20 procedures included 11 lung biopsies, 6 pneumothorax procedures, 2 mediastinic cystectomies, and 1 catamenial pneumothorax procedure. No statistically significant difference was reported in hospital length of stay or chest drain duration between the two groups. However, postoperative pain at 24 h was significantly less in the SILS group (AVPS, 4.40) than in the VATS group (AVPS, 6.20) (p = 0.035). The SILS group reported two minor surgical wound complications and one catamenial pneumothorax recurrence that did not require drainage. The VATS group reported one case of skin rash with no identifiable cause.

Conclusions

The use of the SILS port in thoracic surgery results in less postoperative pain. This is related to the port’s protective effect over the periostium and the intercostal nerve, relieving them of direct contact with surgical instruments. However, the findings showed a higher incidence of surgical wound complications with the SILS port, which can be attributed to increased pressure on the skin and soft tissues surrounding the port and to the fact that this same incision was used for chest drain placement, thus increasing the risk for complications.