Background: Preoperative localization of small size pulmonary nodules is challenging, but it is necessary for surgical resection of early lung cancer. As a new device for preoperative localization, the 4-hookanchor coaxial needle with scaled suture was tentatively applied in our department to improve the effect of preoperative localization. However, double spring coil, as a proven positioning technology, used to be our preferred method in the past. We did a retrospective single-centre research driven by the interest on which one should be the first choice for preoperative localization among these two approaches. Methods:We performed a retrospective analysis on 100 patients undergoing surgery with the new coaxial needle from 2019 to 2020, and 98 patients undergoing double spring coil from 2017 to 2019. The duration of localization, success rate, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and positioning-related complications of these two groups of patients were examined in this study.Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups of patients in terms of the success rate. However, the new coaxial needle seemed to be able to shorten the duration of preparative localization and operation time by accelerating the efficiency of exploring small nodules intraoperatively, and also decreased the risk of positioning-related pneumothorax and pulmonary hemorrhage. The logistic analysis indicated that the puncture depth was an independent risk factor for overall complications. Meanwhile, previous lung diseases and positioning time were independent risk factors for pneumothorax, besides pneumorrhagia and depth of penetration as well. Conclusions:The new coaxial needle can save time for both radiologists and thoracic surgeons, while reducing the risk of positioning-related complications. We support its application clinically instead of the double spring coil.

Background: The merits of spontaneous ventilation video-assisted thoracic surgery (SV-VATS) are still controversial. Our team retrospectively evaluated the intraoperative and postoperative advantages of this surgical approach, comparing with mechanical ventilation video-assisted thoracic surgery (MV-VATS).Methods: We did a single center retrospective study at the First Affiliated Hospital of Yunnan Province. 244 patients were eventually assigned to the SV-group and MV-group, and their intraoperative indicators and thoracic surgery postoperative data were included in the comparison. Results:The SV-group exhibited markedly less intraoperative bleeding and postoperative thoracic drainage, and the bleeding volume was correlated with the volume and duration of drainage. Further analysis showed that, patients undergoing SV-VATS had less activation of white blood cells and neutrophils after surgery, but they also had lower serum albumin concentrations. Risks of short-term postoperative complications, including inflammatory reactions, malignant arrhythmias, constipation, and moderate or more pleural effusions, were also significantly reduced in the SV-group. Additionally, hospitalization cost was lower in the SV-group than that in the MV-group.Conclusions: SV-VATS is suitable for various types of thoracic surgery, and effectively reduce intraoperative bleeding and postoperative thoracic drainage. With less postoperative inflammatory response, it reduces the risk of short-term postoperative complications. It is also able to help to reduce the financial burden of patients.