Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 21, 2026
Subcostal Specimen Removal in Completely Portal Robotic Lobectomy
Published on: April 19, 2024
Single-incision thoracoscopic surgery for primary spontaneous pneumothorax using the SILS port compared with
Hee Chul Yang1, Sukki Cho, Sanghoon Jheon
1Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea. pda1052@gmail.com
Background:
Single-incision thoracoscopic surgery (SITS) is postulated to cause less incisional pain, less paresthesia, and less wound scarring than the conventional three-port approach. The difficulties performing the technique have prevented it from being widely accepted. This study shows how the authors overcame the difficulties by using the SILS port and proved it to be a safe and useful procedure for the treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP).
Methods:
The same surgeon operated on all the patients using the three-port technique (n = 13) and SITS (n = 27) under the same procedural and management policy. The two groups were retrospectively compared in terms of operation time, postoperative complications, hospital stay, pain score, residual paresthesia, satisfaction regarding the wound scar, and surgical material cost.
Results:
The mean age, sex ratio, and previous pneumothorax episodes were similar between the two groups. The uniport and three-port groups did not differ statistically in terms of mean operation time (74.6 ± 22.8 vs 72.4 ± 20.2 min; p = 0.77), hospital stay (2.3 ± 0.7 vs 2.5 ± 0.8 days; p = 0.72), visual analog pain scale (on the day of surgery: 4.1 ± 1.7 vs 4.8 ± 2.2, p = 0.26; on day 1: 3.2 ± 1.4 vs 2.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.33; on day 2: 2.7 ± 1.0 vs 2.6 ± 1.1, p = 0.61), or total surgical material cost (US$1,810 ± $320 vs $1,741 ± $329; p = 0.58). However, the uniport group had a lower incidence of paresthesia than the three-port group (33.3 vs 76.9%; p = 0.01) and showed a higher satisfaction rate regarding wound scarring (70.4 vs 30.7%; p = 0.03).
Conclusions:
Compared with the three-port approach, SITS using the SILS port in PSP patients proved to be a safe and feasible procedure that can be clinically implemented without additional economic burden or operation time. Additionally, SITS showed better cosmesis with minimized neurologic sequelae, which contributed to higher satisfaction among patients. Progress in uniport instruments and surgical experience will lead to wider applications of SITS.
