4.6 Article

Analysis of clinical application of thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-12-157

Keywords

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS); Clinical early stage lung cancer; Lobectomy; Complication; Short-term recurrence rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: VATS has been extensively considered as a standard method of pulmonary diagnosis and treatment of benign lung diseases. This study aimed to investigate the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy compared with conventional lobectomy via open thoracotomy in patients with clinical early stage lung cancer. Methods: A total of 120 patients with lung cancer underwent VATS lobectomy; another 120 patients with lung cancer underwent conventional lobectomy. The clinical outcomes from these two groups were retrospectively analyzed and compared. Results: The numbers of patients who underwent lobectomy in the left upper lobe, left lower lobe, right upper lobe, right middle lobe, and right lower lobe were 24, 28, 40, 4, and 24 in the VATS group and 38, 20, 30, 7, and 25 in the conventional group, respectively. No statistical differences were observed between the two groups. Likewise, no statistical differences were observed in terms of duration of operation, time for postoperative extubation, complications, length of hospital stay, and number of dissected lymph nodes (VATS group: left, 5.12 +/- 1.45, right, 6.84 +/- 1.33; conventional group: left, 4.96 +/- 1.39 mm, right, 6.91 +/- 1.27; P > 0.05). Conclusion: Anatomical lobectomy was successfully completed by VATS lobectomy for lung cancer; the standard lymph node dissection was also achieved. This procedure also showed advantages in terms of surgical bleeding, duration, postoperative complications, indwelling time of chest tube, and short-term recurrence rate without significant differences from conventional lobectomy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available