배경: 일차성 기흉 치료에서 비디오 흉강경수술 후 재발이 큰 문제이다. 이 연구는 기포 절제술 시에 재발 방지를 위해 자동봉합기의 봉합면에 흡수성 보강재(GORE $SEAMGUARD^{(R)}$)를 사용 후 안정성과 효과에 대해 조사하였다. 대상 및 방법: 2000년 1월부터 2004년 12월까지 성균관의대 마산삼성병원 흥부외과에서 일차성 기흉 치료에 흉강경 수술로 300명을 시행하였다. 143명(Group A)은 자동 봉합기 봉합선 보강재를 사용하였고, 142명(Group B)은 자동 봉합기만 사용하였다. 모든 환자에서 기계적인 흉막유착술을 시행하였다. 수술시간, 흉관 거치기간, 입원기간과 수술 후 재발된 환자 수를 비교하였다. 결과: 수술 후의 사망은 없었으며, 비디오 흉강경 수술에서 개흉술로 전환된 환자는 5% (15/300)였다. 두 군간의(Croup A versos Group B) 비교에서는 수술시간($49.6{pm}25.6$ vs $51.8{pm}30.4$ minutes, p=0.514), 흉관 거치기간($5.8{pm}2.5$ vs $7.2{pm}3.3$ days, p<0.005), 입원기간($10.9{pm}4.3$ vs $12.5{pm}4.3$ days, p<0.005), 그리고 재발률(14 (9.8%) vs 10 (7.0%), 전체 8.4%, p=0.523), 추적 관찰 기간($48.1{pm}36.6$ vs $36.5{pm}24.4$ months)의 차이를 보였다. 결론: 통상적인 방법의 수술보다 자동봉합기 봉합선 보강재를 사용한 군에서 흉관 거치기간과 입원기간에는 장점이 있었으나 재발률에는 영향이 없었다.
Background: Postoperative recurrence is a major problem after performing video-assisted thoracic surgery for the treatment of primary pneumothorax. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement (GORE $SEAMGUARD^{(R)}$) for preventing recurrence after bullectomy. Material and Method: From January 2000 to December 2004, 300 patients underwent video assisted thoracoscopic surgery for the treatment of primary penumothorax. 143 patients were treated with bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement (Group A) and 142 patients were treated with stapling of the bullae (Group B). Mechanical pleural abrasion was performed in all the patients. The operating time, the duration of the indwelling chest tube, the length of the hospital stay and the number of recurrences after operation were compared between the groups. Result: No operative deaths occurred. The conversion rate to an open procedure was 5% (15/300). Comparison with these groups (Group A versus Group B) showed the following results: the operating time ($49.6{pm}25.6$ vs $51.8{pm}30.4$ minutes, respectively, p=0.514), the duration of an indwelling chest tube ($5.8{pm}2.5$ vs $7.2{pm}3.3$ days, respectively, p<0.005), the hospital stay ($10.9{pm}4.3$ vs $12.5{pm}4.3$ days, respectively, p<0.005) and the number of recurrences (14 (9.8%) vs 10 (7.0%), respectively, the over all rate: 8.4% p=0.523), and the mean follow up period. ($48.1{pm}36.6$ vs $36.5{pm}24.4$ months, respectively). Conclusion: There were advantages to use synthetic absorbable staple line reinforcement over the usual method for the treatment of primary pneumothorax in regard to the duration of an indwelling chest tube and the hospital stay, but here was no significant difference between the groups for postoperative recurrence.
