4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of pulmonary function tests and perioperative outcomes after robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy vs segmentectomy

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 212, Issue 6, Pages 1175-1182

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.09.017

Keywords

Lung cancer; Lobectomy; Segmentectomy; Robotic surgery; Outcomes; Pulmonary function

Categories

Funding

  1. Scholarly Concentrations Program at the University of South Florida (USF) Health Morsani College of Medicine
  2. Summer Program for the Advancement of Research Knowledge (SPARK) at the Moffitt Cancer Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Lobectomy is standard treatment for early-stage lung cancer, but sublobar resection remains debated. We compared outcomes after robotic-assisted video-assisted thoracoscopic (R-VATS) segmentectomy vs lobectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 251 consecutive patients who underwent RVATS lobectomy (n = 208) or segmentectomy (n = 43) by a single surgeon over 36 months. Pulmonary function tests and perioperative outcomes were compared using Chi-squared test, unpaired Student t test, or Kruskal-Wallis test, with significance at P <=.05. RESULTS: Intraoperative complications were not significantly different, but median operative times were longer for R-VATS segmentectomies (P<.01). Postoperative complications were not significantly different, except for increased rates of pneumothorax after chest tube removal (P=.032) and of effusions or empyema (P=.011) after R-VATS segmentectomies. Predicted changes for forced expiratory volume in 1 second and diffusion constant of the lung for carbon monoxide are significantly less after R-VATS segmentectomy (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: R-VATS segmentectomy should be considered as an alternative to lobectomy for conserving lung function in respiratory-compromised lung cancer patients, although oncologic efficacy remains undetermined. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available