Feasibility of thoracoscopic pulmonary bullectomy using a transareolar approach for treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax

Current opinion and comparison of surgical procedures for the treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax

INTRODUCTION

Although three-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is the standard radical treatment for primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP), several issues need to be addressed as the postoperative recurrence rate remains relatively high. Although bullectomy is effective in preventing the postoperative recurrence of PSP, recurrent pneumothorax often occurs, requiring additional methods such as pleural covering with absorbable mesh sheets, surgical chemical pleurodesis, pleural abrasion, or pleurectomy. In addition, minimally invasive approaches that exceed three-port VATS are required according to the social demand. These approaches, such as uniportal VATS, reduced port surgery, and needlescopic surgery, have cosmetic merits, lower postoperative pain, and similar surgical results as three-port VATS.

AREAS COVERED

We focused on conventional and novel treatments for PSP in this article.

EXPERT OPINION

Effective methods that prevent postoperative recurrence and minimally invasive approaches will become popular in the near future.

A prospective comparative study of thoracoscopic transareolar and uniportal approaches for young male patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we introduce a novel approach, thoracoscopic transareolar bullectomy, for treating young male patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP). This approach might be less invasive and cosmetically superior to existing methods. We also prospectively compared transareolar and uniportal approaches.

METHODS

Between April 2018 and July 2019, 40 patients were prospectively assigned to transareolar (n = 21) and uniportal (n = 19) groups. We compared patient characteristics and perioperative results. Approximately 1 week or 1 year after the operation, postoperative pain was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS), and cosmetic satisfaction was graded on a four-point scale.

RESULTS

We found no significant between-group differences in patient characteristics or perioperative results. NRS scores did not differ on postoperative day (POD) 7 (transareolar, 1.8 ± 0.9 vs. uniportal, 1.6 ± 0.9; p = 0.62) or in postoperative month (POM) 12 (transareolar, 1.3 ± 0.5 vs. uniportal, 1.1 ± 0.5; p = 0.18). In terms of cosmetic satisfaction, the transareolar group was more satisfied on POD 7 (transareolar, 3.5 ± 0.6 vs. uniportal, 2.9 ± 0.9; p = 0.02) and in POM 12 (transareolar, 3.8 ± 0.5 vs. uniportal, 3.3 ± 0.9; p = 0.0065).

CONCLUSION

Although the perioperative results of the transareolar and uniportal approaches were similar, the former approach afforded a little better cosmetic satisfaction and might be useful option for young males with PSP.