Uniportal versus multiport video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for anatomical lung resections: a glance at a dilemma

As the number of operations performed by videothoracoscopy is increasing, there is also a tendency to decrease the number of port incisions. Apart from the reduced number of surgical incisions, there are a few reports and systematic reviews that demonstrate some potential advantages of the uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, but the impact of the reduced incisions in the clinical setting still remains uncertain.

To compare uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery to multiport video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for anatomical lung resections in patients with malignant and benign lung diseases.

From August 2010 to April 2016, a total of 102 patients with malignant and benign lung diseases underwent videothoracoscopic lobar and sublobar lung resections in our department. Comorbidities, tumor stage, tumor localization, mortality, operative time, pain visual analogue scale, length of hospital stay, perioperative blood loss, duration and amount of postoperative drainage and air leak, number of harvested lymph nodes and complication rates were analyzed.

No significant difference was found in the duration of chest tube drainage, pain visual analogue scale score, length of hospital stay, perioperative blood loss, amount of postoperative drainage, number of harvested lymph nodes or complication rate. There was no surgical mortality in either of the two groups. However, operative time was shorter (189 min vs. 256 min, p < 0.005) in the multiport group than in the uniportal group.

Compared with the uniportal approach, the multiport approach is associated with a significantly shorter operative time in our study.