Literature DB >> 27499933

A propensity matched comparison of effects between video assisted thoracoscopic single-port, two-port and three-port pulmonary resection on lung cancer.

Ju-Wei Mu1, Shu-Geng Gao1, Qi Xue1, You-Sheng Mao1, Da-Li Wang1, Jun Zhao1, Yu-Shun Gao1, Jin-Feng Huang1, Jie He1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To summarize our experiences of single-port, two-port vs. three-port VATS pulmonary resection for lung cancer patients.
METHODS: Data of consecutive 1,553 patients who underwent video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) pulmonary resection for lung cancer in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College between November 2014 and January 2016 were prospectively collected and analyzed. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare the short-term outcomes of lung cancer patients who received VATS single-port, two-port and three-port pulmonary resection.
RESULTS: There were 716 males and 837 females. The mean age was 58.90 years (range, 25-82 years) and the conversion rate was 2.7% (42/1,553) in this cohort. After propensity score matching, there were 207 patients in single-port and two-port group, and 680 patients in three-port group. Propensity-matched analysis demonstrated that there were no significant differences in duration of operation (129 vs. 131 min, P=0.689), intra-operative blood loss (63 vs. 70 mL, P=0.175), number of dissected lymph nodes (12 vs. 13, P=0.074), total hospital expense (﹩9,928 vs. ﹩9,956, P=0.884) and cost of operation (﹩536 vs. ﹩535, P=0.879) between VATS single-port, two-port and conventional three-port pulmonary resection groups. There was no significant difference in the complication rate between two groups (5.3% vs. 4.7%, P=0.220). However, compared with three-port group, patients who underwent single port and two-port experienced shorter postoperative length of stay (6.24 vs. 5.61 d, P=0.033), shorter duration of chest tube (4.92 vs. 4.25 d, P=0.008), and decreased volume of drainage (926 vs. 791 d, P=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: The short term outcomes between VATS single-port, two-port and conventional three-port groups for the surgical treatment of lung cancer were comparable. However, compared with three-port VATS pulmonary resection, single-port and two-port were associated with shorter postoperative length of stay, shorter duration of chest tube, and decreased volume of drainage.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Single-port; lung cancer; two-port; video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)

Year:  2016        PMID: 27499933      PMCID: PMC4958795          DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2016.05.64

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Dis        ISSN: 2072-1439            Impact factor:   2.895


  24 in total

Review 1.  Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.209

2.  A prospective randomized, controlled trial deems a drainage of 300 ml/day safe before removal of the last chest drain after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy.

Authors:  Hong-Ya Xie; Kai Xu; Jin-Xing Tang; Wen Bian; Hai-Tao Ma; Jun Zhao; Bin Ni
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-05-15

3.  Single-incision versus multiple-incision thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy: a propensity-matched analysis.

Authors:  Bing-Yen Wang; Chao-Yu Liu; Po-Kuei Hsu; Chih-Shiun Shih; Chia-Chuan Liu
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Single- versus multiple-port thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer: a propensity-matched study†.

Authors:  Yaxing Shen; Hao Wang; Mingxiang Feng; Yong Xi; Lijie Tan; Qun Wang
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 4.191

5.  Systematic classification of morbidity and mortality after thoracic surgery.

Authors:  Andrew J E Seely; Jelena Ivanovic; Jennifer Threader; Ahmed Al-Hussaini; Derar Al-Shehab; Tim Ramsay; Sebastian Gilbert; Donna E Maziak; Farid M Shamji; R Sudhir Sundaresan
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: an alternative to conventional thoracoscopic lobectomy in lung cancer surgery?

Authors:  Jae Ho Chung; Yong Soo Choi; Jong Ho Cho; Hong Kwan Kim; Jhingook Kim; Jae Ill Zo; Young Mog Shim
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-03-03

7.  VATS lobectomy has better perioperative outcomes than open lobectomy: CALGB 31001, an ancillary analysis of CALGB 140202 (Alliance).

Authors:  Chukwumere E Nwogu; Jonathan D'Cunha; Herbert Pang; Lin Gu; Xiaofei Wang; William G Richards; Linda J Veit; Todd L Demmy; David J Sugarbaker; Leslie J Kohman; Scott J Swanson
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open lobectomy in stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yi-xin Cai; Xiang-ning Fu; Qin-zi Xu; Wei Sun; Ni Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  [Analysis of single-operation-hole thoracoscopic lobectomy in 113 clinical cases].

Authors:  Chun Xu; Haitao Ma; Bin Ni; Jingkang He; Chang Li; Cheng Ding; Guangbin Li; Yuxuan Wang; Jun Zhao
Journal:  Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi       Date:  2014-05

10.  [Primary report of lobectomy with single utility port complete video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery].

Authors:  Xiangyang Chu; Zhiqiang Xue; Lianbin Zhang; Xiaobin Hou; Kefeng Ma
Journal:  Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi       Date:  2010-01
View more
  7 in total

1.  A greater quality of clinical evidence is needed.

Authors:  Marcelo F Jiménez; Maria Teresa Gómez Hernández
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Routine intensive monitoring but not routine intensive care unit-based management is necessary in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy for lung cancer.

Authors:  Seung Eun Lee; Woo Hyun Cho; Sang Kwon Lee; Ki Sup Byun; Bong Soo Son; Doosoo Jeon; Yun Seong Kim; Hye Ju Yeo
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-04

3.  Nodal Outcomes of Uniportal versus Multiportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Clinical Stage I Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Jung Suk Choi; Jiyun Lee; Young Kyu Moon; Seok Whan Moon; Jae Kil Park; Mi Hyoung Moon
Journal:  Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2020-06-05

4.  Uniportal versus multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical resection for NSCLC: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yueren Yan; Qingyuan Huang; Han Han; Yang Zhang; Haiquan Chen
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 1.637

Review 5.  Enhanced Recovery in Thoracic Surgery: A Review.

Authors:  Vesna D Dinic; Milena Dragisa Stojanovic; Danica Markovic; Vladan Cvetanovic; Anita Zoran Vukovic; Radmilo J Jankovic
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-02-05

6.  Predictive factors of postoperative complications in single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical resection: Two center experience.

Authors:  Diego Gonzalez-Rivas; Yung Chia Kuo; Ching Yang Wu; Maria Delgado; de la Torre Mercedes; Ricardo Fernandez; Eva Fieira; Ming Ju Hsieh; Marina Paradela; Yin Kai Chao; Ching Feng Wu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Uniportal thoracoscopic pulmonary lobectomy in the treatment of Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Jinying Zhang; Haixia Zhao; Lingmei Lv; Jiang Yuan; Yuzhen Sun
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.088

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.