Single-incision versus multiport video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the treatment of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Recent studies compared single-incision thoracoscopic surgery (SITS) with more widely used conventional multiport video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the treatment of lung cancer. To establish the safety and feasible of SITS in the treatment of lung cancer, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Eleven studies were identified from the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, and ScienceDirect. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies evaluated the outcomes of SITS compared with multiport video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the treatment of lung cancer were included for analysis. Odds ratio (OR, used to compare dichotomous variables) and weight mean difference (WMD, used to compare continuous variables) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 1314 patients were included for analysis. Our analysis showed that the operative time, blood loss amount, mean duration of chest tube, lymph nodes retrieved were similar between two approaches, the SITS pulmonary resection might be associated with shorter hospital stay (p = .008) and lower complication rate (p = .009) when compared with conventional multiport video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients SITS is safe, feasible and may be considered an alternative to multiport VATS.