自制多槽硅胶软管联合单项式负压引流系统在单操作孔胸腔镜肺癌手术中的临床应用研究

目的 评价自制多槽硅胶软管联合单项式负压引流系统在单操作孔胸腔镜肺癌手术中的临床应用效果，为胸腔镜肺癌术后引流提供新的选择 方法 回顾性分析2018年5月至2019年10月在本院胸外科接受胸腔镜肺癌手术的200；200例 患者的临床资料。按照术后胸腔引流方式的不同，分为常规胸管引流组（胸管组）和多槽式硅胶软管联合单项式负压引流组（新系统组），其中胸管组 100 例，新系统组 100 例。比较术前两组患者的流行病学资料及临床病理资料，比较术后两组胸腔引流的临床效果。 结果 两组患者在年龄、性别、病理类型、组织特等临床资料方面比较无统计学差异（P>0.05）。两组患者围手术期均未出现胸腔出血、支气管胸膜瘘等严重并发症，两组在拔管时间、住院天数及并发症发生率方面无统计学差异（P>0.05）,但新系统组在胸腔积液及切口愈合不良发生率方面有优于胸管组的趋势。新系统组VAS评分在术后各阶段均较胸管组更低（P<0.05），且新系统组镇痛药物使用频次更低， 结论 多槽式硅胶软管联合单项式负压引流系统具有不劣于常规胸管引流系统的临床应用效果，且痛感轻，患者耐受性高，其可作为单操作孔肺癌术后胸腔引流的替代方式。

Clinical application of multi-groove silicone hose combined with monomial negative pressure drainage system in single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery

Background: To evaluate the effect of multi-groove silicone hose combined with monomial negative pressure drainage system in single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery, thereby providing a new option for postoperative drainage of thoracoscopic surgery . Material and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of 200 patients who underwent single utility port thoracoscopic surgery between May 2018 and October 2019. According to the methods of postoperative drainage, the patients were divided into the conventional thoracic tube drainage group (thoracic tube group) and the multi-groove silicone hose combined with monomial negative pressure drainage group (new system group). The epidemiological and clinicopathological data of the two groups were compared before operation, and the clinical effect of thoracic drainage was compared after operation. Results: There was no significant difference in age, gender, pathological type and histological characteristics between the two groups (p>0.05). There were no serious perioperative complications There was no significant difference in extubation time, hospital stay and complication rate between the two groups (p>0.05). However, the incidence of pleural effusion and poor incision healing in the new system group was better than that in the thoracic tube group. VAS score of the new system group was lower than that of the thoracic tube group at each postoperative interval (p<0.05), and the frequency of analgesic drugs was lower in the new system group. Conclusion: The new drainage system is not inferior to the conventional thoracic tube drainage system in single utility port thoracoscopic surgery; Hence, it can be used as an alternative to thoracic drainage after single utility port thoracoscopic surgery.