Frank C Detterbeck1, Thomas M Egan. 1. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7065, USA. fdetter@med.unc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A substernal handport allows palpation of the lung and thus circumvents one of the major limitations of thoracoscopy. METHODS: This approach has been used in 24 consecutive patients, primarily during planned metastasectomy or when palpation was needed for deeper or smaller lesions that were difficult to find. RESULTS: No long-term complications from this procedure were noted, and the 3 early complications were either minor or unrelated to the procedure. This approach allowed adequate resection to be accomplished by a less invasive approach in 67% of patients, although conversion to an open procedure was necessary in 33% of patients for anatomic and technical reasons. Among the 16 patients who underwent this procedure alone, the median length of stay in the hospital was 3 days. The rate of incomplete resection and of recurrence after metastasectomy was comparable to that for an open approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience documents that a substernal handport is safe, does not compromise the ability to perform an adequate metastasectomy, and allows biopsy of lesions that are otherwise not amenable to a minimally invasive approach. This technique should be included in the standard armamentarium of approaches for thoracic surgery.
BACKGROUND: A substernal handport allows palpation of the lung and thus circumvents one of the major limitations of thoracoscopy. METHODS: This approach has been used in 24 consecutive patients, primarily during planned metastasectomy or when palpation was needed for deeper or smaller lesions that were difficult to find. RESULTS: No long-term complications from this procedure were noted, and the 3 early complications were either minor or unrelated to the procedure. This approach allowed adequate resection to be accomplished by a less invasive approach in 67% of patients, although conversion to an open procedure was necessary in 33% of patients for anatomic and technical reasons. Among the 16 patients who underwent this procedure alone, the median length of stay in the hospital was 3 days. The rate of incomplete resection and of recurrence after metastasectomy was comparable to that for an open approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience documents that a substernal handport is safe, does not compromise the ability to perform an adequate metastasectomy, and allows biopsy of lesions that are otherwise not amenable to a minimally invasive approach. This technique should be included in the standard armamentarium of approaches for thoracic surgery.