目的 介紹胸部良性疾病經單孔胸腔鏡切除術后免胸腔引流管的臨床經驗。 方法 回顧性分析 2015 年 10 月至 2016 年 10 月我院胸外科 17 例行單孔胸腔鏡手術患者的臨床資料，其中男 9 例、女 8 例，年齡 33.8（17～58）歲。行肺大皰切除術 7 例，肺楔形切除術 9 例，交感神經烙斷術 1 例。 結果 所有患者均經單孔胸腔鏡手術有效切除，期間無中轉開胸或再次開操作孔，術后不放置胸腔引流管，手術時間為（60.3±8.2）min，術中出血量為（15.2±5.1）ml，術后第 1 d、2 d、3 d 疼痛視覺模擬評分（VAS） 為 6.5±2.2，5.8±2.1，3.5±1.3，術后舒適度評分分別為 8.6±1.3，術后早期下床活動時間為（1.0±0.3）d，切口甲級愈合率 100.0%。17 例患者均無心律失常、肺部感染等并發癥，術后隨訪 6 個月氣胸均無復發。 結論 合理選擇及嚴格基線評估，胸部良性疾病經單孔胸腔鏡切除術后免胸腔引流管是安全可行的，可能有利于患者術后快速康復。
ObjectiveTo compare and evaluate the effect and quality of T-tube drainage and bulit-in-tube drainage plus primary suture after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). MethodsA clinical trial was taken in 79 cases with T-tube drainage (control group) and 62 cases with built-in-tube drainage (observation group). The treatment success rate, incidence of complications, bilirubin recovered time, length of stay, recuperation time, and treatment cost were measured and compared between the two groups. ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in treatment success rate, incidences of complications, and bilirubin recovered time of patients （Pgt;0.05）, while length of stay, recuperation time, and treatment cost of patients in observation group were significantly less than those in control group （Plt;0.05）. ConclusionsBuilt-in-tube drainage plus primary suture after LC and common bile duct exploration could achieve the same therapeutic effect as the traditional T-tube drainage with less length of stay, recuperation time, and treatment cost.
ObjectiveTo compare and evaluate the application of two types of chest drainage in patients who had undergone the lung lobe resection. MethodWe retrospective analyzed the clinical data of 240 patients who underwent left lobe resection. The patients were divided into a single conventional drainage group with single chest drainage tube (normal group) and a single conventional drainage tube combined with drainage of disposable surgical negative pressure drainage ball (NPBD) (combination group). There were 140 patients including 86 males and 54 females at mean age of 48.76± 4.92 years in the normal group. There were 100 patients including 58 males and 42 females at mean age of 48.37± 4.56 years in the combination group. We compared the outcomes between the two groups. ResultThe postoperative pathological results revealed there were 12 patients with tuberculosis (TB), 87 patients with squamous carcinoma, and 41 patients with adenocarcinoma in the normal group; 5 patients with TB, 66 patients with squamous carcinoma, and 29 patients with adenocarcinoma in the combination group. There were statistical differences in postoperative hospital stay (11.35± 2.78 d vs. 9.33± 2.46 d), chest drainage tube indwelling time (6.75± 2.10 d vs. 8.28± 2.10 d), total volume of chest drainage (1 176.07± 384.62 ml vs. 926.50± 22.35 ml) with P values less than 0.001 between the normal group and the combination group. No statistical difference was found between the two groups in complications (P>0.05). ConclusionSingle conventional drainage tube combined with drainage of disposable surgical negative pressure drainage ball (NPBD) has more advantages than single conventional chest drainage tube drainage, and is worth to be applied popularly in clinic.
ObjectiveTo compare postoperative efficacy of thoracoscopic partial pneumonectomy with or without thoracic drainage tube postoperatively.MethodsThe PubMed, Wanfang database, CNKI and Web of Science from January 2000 to August 2020 were searched by computer to collect randomized controlled studies (RCT), cohort studies and case-control studies on the efficacy of chest drainage tube placement versus no placement after thoracoscopic partial pneumonectomy. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data to evaluate the risk of literature bias. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan software.ResultsA total of 15 articles were included, including 1 RCT and 14 cohort studies. A total of 1 524 patients were enrolled, including 819 patients in the test group (no postoperative chest drainage tube group) and 705 patients in the control group (postoperative chest drainage tube group). Compared with the control group, the length of hospital stay in the test group was shorter (MD=–1.3, 95%CI –1.23 to –0.17, P<0.000 01) and the incidence of postoperative pneumothorax was higher (RD=0.06, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.10, P=0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in operation time (MD=–2.37, 95%CI –7.04 to 2.30, P=0.32), the incidence of postoperative complications (RR=2.43, 95%CI 0.79 to 1.80, P=0.39), the reintervention rate of postoperative complications (RD=0.02, 95%CI=–0.00 to 0.04, P=0.05), postoperative subcutaneous emphysema (RD=0.02, 95%CI –0.01 to 0.06, P=0.20) and the incidence of postoperative pleural effusion (RD=0.04, 95%CI –0.00 to 0.09, P=0.10) .ConclusionCompared with the patients with chest drainage tube placement after thoracoscopic partial pneumonectomy (the control group), the test group can shorten the hospital stay. Although the incidence of postoperative pneumothorax is higher than that of the control group, the operation time, incidence of postoperative subcutaneous emphysema and in-hospital complications, and reintervention rate of in-hospital complications are not statistically significant between the two groups. Therefore no chest drainage tube may be placed after partial pneumonectomy.
目的 探討胰十二指腸切除術中引流管的放置與術后管理的方法。方法回顧性分析88例胰十二指腸切除術后管理經驗。結果 術后腹腔并發癥的發生率為10.2%(9/88)，胃排空障礙發生率為3.4(3/88)%，其中保留幽門胰十二指腸切除術后胃排空障礙發生率為5.5%(3/55)。結論 胰十二指腸切除術后腹腔引流是預防術后并發癥的重要方法，術中合理放置引流管，術后加強腹腔引流的管理，能減少術后并發癥的發生。
ObjectiveTo assess the safety of the removal of pericardial and mediastinal drain within different drainage volume after cardiac valvular replacement surgery.MethodsBetween July 2013 and July 2017, 201 patients with rheumatic heart disease (CHD) were treated with valve replacement in our hospital, including 57 males and 144 females, aged 15 to 72 years. They were divided into two groups according to the amount of 24-h drainage before the drain removal: a group one with 24-h drainage volume≤50 ml (n=127) and a group two with 24-h drainage volume>50 ml (n=74). The postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of severe complications between the two groups were compared.ResultsThere was no difference between the two groups in the baseline information or the incidence of severe pericardial effusion and tamponade, while the group two tended to have a shorter length of hospital stay after surgery (8.0 d vs. 7.5 d, P=0.013).ConclusionIn CHD patients undergoing valvular surgery, compared with a relatively low amount of drainage before the drain removal, drawing the tube at a greater amount of drainage (24-h drainage volume>50 ml) will shorten the length of hospital stay after cardiac surgery while incidence of severe complications remains the same.
Objective To evaluate the effect of mediastinal drainage tube placed in the left thoracic cavity after partial resection of the mediastinum pleura in robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma, and to compare it with the traditional method of mediastinal drainage tube placed in mediastinum. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 96 patients who underwent robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma by the surgeons in the same medical group in our department between July 2018 and March 2021. There were 78 males and 18 females, aged 52-79 years. Left mediastinum pleura around the carcinoma during operation was resected in all patients. Patients were divided into two groups according to the method of mediastinal drainage tube placement: a control group (placed in mediastinum) and an observation group (placed through the mediastinal pleura into the left thoracic cavity with several side ports distributed in the mediastinum). The incidence of left thoracentesis or catheterization after surgery, anastomotic fistula and anastomotic healing time, other complications such as pneumonia and postoperative pain score were also compared between the two groups. Results There was no statistical difference in baseline data or surgical parameters between the two groups. The percentage of patients in the observation group who needed re-thoracentesis or re-catheterization postoperatively due to massive pleural effusion in the left thoracic cavity was significantly lower than that in the control group (5.6% vs. 21.4%, P=0.020). The incidence of anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs. 7.1%, P=0.651) and the healing time of anastomosis (18.56±4.27 d vs. 24.33±5.48 d, P=0.304) were not statistically different between the two groups, and there was no statistical difference in other complications such as pulmonary infection. Moreover, the postoperative pain score was also similar between the two groups. Conclusion For patients whose mediastinal pleura is removed partially during robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma, placing the drainage tube through the mediastinal pleura into the left thoracic cavity can reduce the risk of left-side thoracentesis or catheterization, which may promote the postoperative recovery of patients.