The recurrence rate of spontaneous pneumothorax is high, and some cases can recur within the first month after the first onset. Without effective preventive measures, the recurrence rate within 5 years is 28% for primary spontaneous pneumothorax and 43% for secondary pneumothorax. Therefore, those with more than two episodes should generally be treated surgically. In order to avoid recurrent attacks, which will affect study, work and normal life; more seriously, recurrent attackers will have aggravated thoracic adhesions, which will cause difficulties for later surgery, more bleeding and less effective surgery than those who have been operated early. Just last week, we did a case of a patient with recurrent pneumothorax on both sides, with multiple adhesions on one side, forming a divided pneumothorax, and in comparison with the chest CT a few years ago, the pulmonary blisters fused with each other, forming a huge pulmonary blister, which caused substantial damage to the patient’s lung function. During clinical treatment, not only patients themselves are reluctant to undergo surgery for pneumothorax with more than two episodes, but even respiratory physicians have a very vague understanding. Another prominent problem in pneumothorax treatment is the so-called “minimally invasive intubation” by internists, which has been particularly prominent in the past two years. Almost every week, patients with untreated pneumothorax are transferred from all over the province or even from other provinces, invariably with a very thin drainage tube. The families of the patients were proud and comforted by the introduction of this tube. What they are proud of is that this is the original creation of a famous local internal medicine specialist and placed by him personally; what they are masturbating about is that this tube causes very little pain. In fact, we insiders can see that this is just an ordinary deep vein placement tube. In recent years, many respiratory physicians have introduced closed drainage to pneumothorax, which is beautifully called “minimally invasive”. It is true that this tube is placed, the patient’s pain is light, and it does play a good role at the beginning of placement. However, in my long-term clinical practice, I have learned that this practice is questionable. This is because almost all such tubes are clogged after three or four days. The reasons for this are, in my opinion, the following: (1) The inner diameter of the tube is extremely thin and easily blocked. (2) Most internists do not have the habit of squeezing the drainage tube to ensure its patency, and just let it go. In this way, a week later, routine radiographs revealed that the lungs did not open at all, and it was difficult to open them completely at that time, with predictable consequences. So I would like to think that in an emergency situation, this method can be used, but after two or three days, to ensure the patency, so as not to make a mistake. In general, it is better to place a slightly thicker drainage tube.