Scholarlink

<p>This study aims to evaluate the surgical efficacy and safety of subareolar subcutaneous tunnel single-port thoracoscopic radical resection in the treatment of lung cancer. Retrospective analysis of 61 lung cancer patients undergoing resection: 29 received areola subcutaneous tunneling single-port resection, and 32 conventional single-port VATS. Perioperative parameters, complications, and 1-month outcomes were compared. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to intraoperative operation time, total number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative drainage duration, total postoperative drainage volume, length of postoperative hospital stay, VAS pain score on postoperative day 3, or incidence of postoperative complications (all <i>P</i> &gt; 0.05). However, The periareolar incision group demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (63.62 ± 11.49&#xa0;mL vs. 77.03 ± 14.19&#xa0;mL), lower VAS pain scores on the first postoperative day (3.69 ± 1.49 vs. 4.88 ± 1.72) and second postoperative day (3.31 ± 1.39 vs. 4.28 ± 1.76), and a lower rate of postoperative analgesic prescriptions (20.69% vs. 53.13%) compared to the single-port group (all <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). However, the periareolar approach was associated with longer surgical approach time (3.40 ± 0.28&#xa0;min vs. 1.68 ± 0.27&#xa0;min), prolonged total operation duration (124.12 ± 8.25&#xa0;min vs. 118.21 ± 9.28&#xa0;min), and an increased incidence of subcutaneous fluid accumulation in the tunnel area (13.79% vs. 0%) (all <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). One areola-group conversion to open surgery occurred. No perioperative deaths or breast injuries were observed. Scarring and sensory disturbances were significantly reduced in the areola group. Areola subcutaneous tunneling single-port resection is safe and feasible, with perioperative outcomes comparable to conventional VATS. It reduces early postoperative pain and improves cosmesis but requires vigilance for tunnel-related fluid accumulation. This approach offers a viable option for patients prioritizing aesthetic outcomes. This study, being a retrospective analysis, is subject to certain limitations, including a limited sample size and a relatively short follow-up duration. Therefore, the conclusions drawn require further validation through large-scale, prospective studies with robust designs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analysis of the safety and feasibility of subcutaneous areolar tunnel single-port thoracoscopic radical resection for lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月6日

查看全文
  • Kai Yang,
  • Keyong Li,
  • Chao Guo,
  • Changhao Que,
  • Zhuang Zuo,
  • Jin Wang,
  • Qi Wang,
  • Dacheng Jin,
  • Yunjiu Gou,
  • Chengfeng Wang

摘要

This study aims to evaluate the surgical efficacy and safety of subareolar subcutaneous tunnel single-port thoracoscopic radical resection in the treatment of lung cancer. Retrospective analysis of 61 lung cancer patients undergoing resection: 29 received areola subcutaneous tunneling single-port resection, and 32 conventional single-port VATS. Perioperative parameters, complications, and 1-month outcomes were compared. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to intraoperative operation time, total number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative drainage duration, total postoperative drainage volume, length of postoperative hospital stay, VAS pain score on postoperative day 3, or incidence of postoperative complications (all P > 0.05). However, The periareolar incision group demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (63.62 ± 11.49 mL vs. 77.03 ± 14.19 mL), lower VAS pain scores on the first postoperative day (3.69 ± 1.49 vs. 4.88 ± 1.72) and second postoperative day (3.31 ± 1.39 vs. 4.28 ± 1.76), and a lower rate of postoperative analgesic prescriptions (20.69% vs. 53.13%) compared to the single-port group (all P < 0.05). However, the periareolar approach was associated with longer surgical approach time (3.40 ± 0.28 min vs. 1.68 ± 0.27 min), prolonged total operation duration (124.12 ± 8.25 min vs. 118.21 ± 9.28 min), and an increased incidence of subcutaneous fluid accumulation in the tunnel area (13.79% vs. 0%) (all P < 0.05). One areola-group conversion to open surgery occurred. No perioperative deaths or breast injuries were observed. Scarring and sensory disturbances were significantly reduced in the areola group. Areola subcutaneous tunneling single-port resection is safe and feasible, with perioperative outcomes comparable to conventional VATS. It reduces early postoperative pain and improves cosmesis but requires vigilance for tunnel-related fluid accumulation. This approach offers a viable option for patients prioritizing aesthetic outcomes. This study, being a retrospective analysis, is subject to certain limitations, including a limited sample size and a relatively short follow-up duration. Therefore, the conclusions drawn require further validation through large-scale, prospective studies with robust designs.