4.5 Review

Is VATS lobectomy standard of care for operable non-small cell lung cancer?

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 114-119

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.08.004

关键词

VATS lobectomy; Minimally invasive thoracic surgery; Lung cancer; Video-assisted thoracic surgery; Anatomic lung resection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) for treatment of lung cancer is being increasingly applied worldwide in the last few years. Since its introduction, many publications have been providing strong evidences that this minimally invasive approach is feasible, safe and oncologically efficient; offering to patients several advantages over traditional open thoracotomy, particularly for early-stage disease (I and II). The application of VATS for locally advanced disease treatment has also been largely described, but probably requires a further level of experience, which is more likely to be found in reference centers, with skilled experts. Although a large multi-institutional prospective randomized-controlled trial is the best way to confirm the superiority of one technique over another, such study comparing VATS versus open lobectomy for lung cancer is unlikely to ever come out. And in this scenario, retrospective data remains as the most reliable source of scientific information. Based on a literature review, the main objective of this article is to discuss to what extent VATS lobectomy can be considered the gold standard in the surgical treatment of lung cancer, taking into account the most important comparison aspects between the minimally invasive approach and open thoracotomy technique. This review addresses questions regarding lymph node dissection, oncologic efficacy, extended resections beyond standard lobectomy, post-operative complications/pain/quality of life, survival rates and the present limits of indication (and contraindication) for VATS, in order to define the real role of this technique on the surgical treatment of lung cancer in a minimally invasive, but safe and effective manner. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据