Purpose： For penetrating thoracic trauma, there is no consensus on whether operative exploration or conservative treatment is better. In this study, we compared the clinical effect of video-assisted thoracoscopic sur...Purpose： For penetrating thoracic trauma, there is no consensus on whether operative exploration or conservative treatment is better. In this study, we compared the clinical effect of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery （VATS） and thoracotomy on the patients with penetrating thoracic trauma. Methods： From January 2000 to December 2010, 123 patients with penetrating thoracic trauma were treated in Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University. Based on the inclusion criteria, 80 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned into VATS and thoracotomy group. Results： The operation time, amount of bleeding and drainage in VATS group were all lower than traditional operation （p 〈 0.05）. Conclusion： The results indicate that VATS has the merits of shorter operation time, non-blind area, exact surgical path and less bleeding comparing with traditional operation.展开更多
文摘Purpose： For penetrating thoracic trauma, there is no consensus on whether operative exploration or conservative treatment is better. In this study, we compared the clinical effect of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery （VATS） and thoracotomy on the patients with penetrating thoracic trauma. Methods： From January 2000 to December 2010, 123 patients with penetrating thoracic trauma were treated in Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University. Based on the inclusion criteria, 80 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned into VATS and thoracotomy group. Results： The operation time, amount of bleeding and drainage in VATS group were all lower than traditional operation （p 〈 0.05）. Conclusion： The results indicate that VATS has the merits of shorter operation time, non-blind area, exact surgical path and less bleeding comparing with traditional operation.
