We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
One-port video-assisted thoracic surgery versus three-port video-assisted thoracic surgery for primary spontaneous pneumothorax: a meta-analysis.
Surgical Endoscopy 2017 January
OBJECTIVE: To further understand the effects of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) with one-port versus three-port VATS for primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP).
METHODS: In this study, we searched information from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data databases from inception to September 2015 to collect data of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies about one-port VATS versus three-port VATS for PSP. Two independent authors were committed to screen literature, extract data, and assess the risk of bias of related studies. Then, we used the RevMan 5.20 software for a meta-analysis of one-port VATS versus three-port VATS for PSP.
RESULTS: Six cohort studies involving 310 patients were finally selected in this meta-analysis. The results of our study indicate that one-port VATS had a shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95 % CI -0.69 to 0.09, P = 0.01), lower VAS score of 24-h post-operative pain (SMD = -0.78, 95 % CI -1.40 to -0.52, P < 0.00001), shorter chest drainage time (SMD = -0.68, 95 % CI -1.15 to -0.22, P = 0.004), and lower incidence of post-operative paraesthesia (OR = 0.13, 95 % CI 0.06 to 0.29, P < 0.00001) compared with three-port VATS. However, one-port VATS had a lower patient satisfaction score at 24 h (SMD = -0.65, 95 % CI -0.95 to -0.35, P < 0.0001) and 48 h (SMD = -0.46, 95 % CI -0.71 to -0.21, P = 0.0002). No differences in the recurrence of pneumothorax (OR = 0.58, 95 % CI 0.20 to 1.67, P = 0.32), the operation time (SMD = 1.01, 95 % CI -4.63 to 2.60, P = 0.58), and the satisfaction score at 72 h (SMD = -0.11, 95 % CI -0.44 to 0.22, P < 0.00001) were noted between the groups.
CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that one-port VATS may have certain advantages over three-port VATS for PSP. More large-scale and high-quality studies are needed for authentication.
METHODS: In this study, we searched information from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data databases from inception to September 2015 to collect data of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies about one-port VATS versus three-port VATS for PSP. Two independent authors were committed to screen literature, extract data, and assess the risk of bias of related studies. Then, we used the RevMan 5.20 software for a meta-analysis of one-port VATS versus three-port VATS for PSP.
RESULTS: Six cohort studies involving 310 patients were finally selected in this meta-analysis. The results of our study indicate that one-port VATS had a shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95 % CI -0.69 to 0.09, P = 0.01), lower VAS score of 24-h post-operative pain (SMD = -0.78, 95 % CI -1.40 to -0.52, P < 0.00001), shorter chest drainage time (SMD = -0.68, 95 % CI -1.15 to -0.22, P = 0.004), and lower incidence of post-operative paraesthesia (OR = 0.13, 95 % CI 0.06 to 0.29, P < 0.00001) compared with three-port VATS. However, one-port VATS had a lower patient satisfaction score at 24 h (SMD = -0.65, 95 % CI -0.95 to -0.35, P < 0.0001) and 48 h (SMD = -0.46, 95 % CI -0.71 to -0.21, P = 0.0002). No differences in the recurrence of pneumothorax (OR = 0.58, 95 % CI 0.20 to 1.67, P = 0.32), the operation time (SMD = 1.01, 95 % CI -4.63 to 2.60, P = 0.58), and the satisfaction score at 72 h (SMD = -0.11, 95 % CI -0.44 to 0.22, P < 0.00001) were noted between the groups.
CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that one-port VATS may have certain advantages over three-port VATS for PSP. More large-scale and high-quality studies are needed for authentication.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app