4.5 Article

Uniportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Resection and Lobectomy for Infants With Pulmonary Sequestration: Case Series and Initial Experience

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.798342

关键词

video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; infant; lobectomy; pulmonary sequestration; uniportal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of U-VATS for infants with pulmonary sequestration. The results showed a high success rate, short post-operative hospital stay, and no mortality or major complications.
Background: The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (U-VATS) for infants with pulmonary sequestration (PS).Methods: From January 2019 to July 2020, 19 infants with PS were admitted to a provincial hospital in the Fujian Province of China. A 1.5-cm utility port was created in the fifth intercostal space at the anterior axillary line. A rigid 30 degrees 5-mm optic thoracoscope was used for vision, and two or three instruments were utilized through the port. Surgical options include standard lobectomy, wedge resection, and resection of the extralobar sequestration. Only one intercostal space was entered, and a chest tube was inserted through the same skin incision if necessary.Results: The procedure was successful in all patients with an average operation duration of 58.3 +/- 31.5 min. The length of post-operative hospital stay was 5.4 +/- 1.5 days, and no post-operative deaths or serious complications were observed. The mean post-operative drainage volume was 164.6 +/- 45.9 mL, and the mean post-operative thoracic tube indwelling duration was 5.5 +/- 1.0 days. No intraoperative conversion, surgical mortality, or major complications were identified among the patients.Conclusion: Our preliminary experience presented a series of U-VATS lobectomy, wedge resection, and resection of the PS for infants with satisfactory perioperative results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据