ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of single-incision video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) versus conventional three-port VATS for primary spontaneous pneumothorax. MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data from inception to Dec. 2014, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing single-incision VATS and conventional three-port VATS for primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 8 cohort studies involving 483 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:Compared with conventional three-port VATS, single-incision VATS had shorter operation time (MD=-3.90, 95%CI -7.22 to -0.58, P=0.02), less amount of intraoperative bleeding (MD=-9.34, 95%CI -15.26 to -3.42, P=0.002), shorter chest drainage time (MD=-0.66, 95%CI -1.02 to -0.29, P=0.000 4), lower VAS score of 24h-postoperative pain (MD=-0.90, 95%CI -1.14 to -0.66, P<0.000 01) and lower incidence of postoperative paresthesia (OR=0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31, P<0.000 01). Meanwhile, there were no statistical differences between both groups in hospital stay (MD=-0.30, 95%CI -0.63 to 0.03, P=0.08) and the recurrence of pneumothorax (OR=0.68, 95%CI 0.25 to 1.83, P=0.53). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows, single-incision VATS is superior to conventional three-port VATS in the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax. However, due to limited quality and quantity of included studies, more large-scale, high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of single-incision video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) versus conventional multiple ports VATS for lung cancer. MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2016), EMbase, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data from inception to April 2016, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing single-incision VATS and conventional multiple ports VATS for lung cancer. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 9 cohort studies involving 1 318 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with the conventional multiple ports VATS group, the single-incision VATS group had shorter chest drainage time (MD=-0.70, 95%CI -1.38 to -0.02, P=0.04), shorter hospital stay (MD=-0.52, 95%CI -0.91 to -0.14, P=0.007), less amount of intraoperative bleeding (MD=-18.49, 95%CI -33.61 to -3.37, P=0.02), lower VAS score at 1 and 3 days after surgery (MD=-0.32, 95%CI -0.51 to -0.14, P=0.000 7; MD=-0.48, 95%CI -0.58 to -0.38, P < 0.000 01). Meanwhile, there were no statistical differences between both groups in operation time (MD=-3.40, 95%CI -13.65 to 6.85, P=0.52), the postoperative complications (OR=0.91, 95%CI 0.65 to 1.27, P=0.56), the number of lymph node dissection (MD=-0.79, 95%CI -2.35 to 0.77, P=0.32), the total cost (MD=0.47, 95%CI -0.39 to 1.32, P=0.28), the intraoperative conversion rate (OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.44 to 1.93, P=0.82) and VAS score at 7 days after surgery (MD=-1.18, 95%CI -2.42 to 0.07, P=0.06). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows, single-incision VATS is superior in the surgical trauma to conventional multiple ports VATS in the treatment of lung cancer, However, due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, more large-scale, high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.