Gregor J Kocher1, Jannie Lysgaard Poulson2, Morten Rune Blichfeldt-Eckhardt3, Bo Elle4, Ralph A Schmid5, Peter B Licht2. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark Division of General Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland gregor.kocher@insel.ch. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Anesthesia, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 4. Department of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 5. Division of General Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The importance of phrenic nerve preservation during pneumonectomy remains controversial. We previously demonstrated that preservation of the phrenic nerve in the immediate postoperative period preserved lung function by 3-5% but little is known about its long-term effects. We, therefore, decided to investigate the effect of temporary ipsilateral cervical phrenic nerve block on dynamic lung volumes in mid- to long-term pneumonectomy patients. METHODS: We investigated 14 patients after a median of 9 years post pneumonectomy (range: 1-15 years). Lung function testing (spirometry) and fluoroscopic and/or sonographic assessment of diaphragmatic motion on the pneumonectomy side were performed before and after ultrasonographic-guided ipsilateral cervical phrenic nerve block by infiltration with lidocaine. RESULTS: Ipsilateral phrenic nerve block was successfully achieved in 12 patients (86%). In the remaining 2 patients, diaphragmatic motion was already paradoxical before the nerve block. We found no significant difference on dynamic lung function values (FEV1 'before' 1.39 ± 0.44 vs FEV1 'after' 1.38 ± 0.40; P = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Induction of a temporary diaphragmatic palsy did not significantly influence dynamic lung volumes in mid- to long-term pneumonectomy patients, suggesting that preservation of the phrenic nerve is of greater importance in the immediate postoperative period after pneumonectomy.
OBJECTIVES: The importance of phrenic nerve preservation during pneumonectomy remains controversial. We previously demonstrated that preservation of the phrenic nerve in the immediate postoperative period preserved lung function by 3-5% but little is known about its long-term effects. We, therefore, decided to investigate the effect of temporary ipsilateral cervical phrenic nerve block on dynamic lung volumes in mid- to long-term pneumonectomy patients. METHODS: We investigated 14 patients after a median of 9 years post pneumonectomy (range: 1-15 years). Lung function testing (spirometry) and fluoroscopic and/or sonographic assessment of diaphragmatic motion on the pneumonectomy side were performed before and after ultrasonographic-guided ipsilateral cervical phrenic nerve block by infiltration with lidocaine. RESULTS: Ipsilateral phrenic nerve block was successfully achieved in 12 patients (86%). In the remaining 2 patients, diaphragmatic motion was already paradoxical before the nerve block. We found no significant difference on dynamic lung function values (FEV1 'before' 1.39 ± 0.44 vs FEV1 'after' 1.38 ± 0.40; P = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Induction of a temporary diaphragmatic palsy did not significantly influence dynamic lung volumes in mid- to long-term pneumonectomy patients, suggesting that preservation of the phrenic nerve is of greater importance in the immediate postoperative period after pneumonectomy.