| Literature DB >> 31423191 |
Zhongrui Ye1, Bo Zhang1, Yu Chen1, Jiang Lin1.
Abstract
Clinical efficacy of single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and three-port VATS for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was compared. A total of 156 patients with NSCLC who underwent VATS in Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province from July 2015 to January 2017 were selected as subjects. They were randomly divided into group A (n=74) and group B (n=82), in which group A was treated with single utility port VATS and group B was treated with three-port VATS. Perioperative indicators such as operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, removal of drainage tube, lymph node dissection, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, postoperative pain and postoperative quality of life were observed. Expression levels of CRP and IL-6 in serum were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). There was no significant difference in the operation time, postoperative drainage volume, drainage tube removal time and lymph node dissection between groups A and B (P>0.05). Blood loss and hospitalization time in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P<0.001). VAS scores at 1-3 days after operation in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P<0.001). Levels of serum CRP and IL-6 at 1-7 days after operation in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P<0.001). Incidence of complication in group A was not significantly different from that in group B (P>0.05). Overall quality of life scores of group A and B were significantly lower than the preoperative scores (P<0.001). Overall status score of group A was significantly higher than that of group B (P<0.001). Clinical efficacies of single utility port VATS and three-port VATS were similar. Single utility port VATS can reduce trauma during surgery, reduce stress response, relieve postoperative pain, and facilitate the recovery of postoperative quality of life.Entities:
Keywords: clinical efficacy; non-small cell lung cancer; single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; three-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery
Year: 2019 PMID: 31423191 PMCID: PMC6607390 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2019.10394
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
Baseline data of groups A and B [n (%)]/(mean ± SD).
| Items | Group A (n=74) | Group B (n=82) | t/χ2 value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 3.293 | 0.070 | ||
| Male | 43 (58.11) | 59 (71.95) | ||
| Female | 31 (41.89) | 23 (28.05) | ||
| Age | 62.67±9.16 | 61.83±8.26 | 0.602 | 0.548 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 20.47±3.18 | 20.04±3.07 | 0.859 | 0.392 |
| History of smoking | 2.212 | 0.137 | ||
| Yes | 30 (40.54) | 43 (52.44) | ||
| No | 44 (59.46) | 39 (47.56) | ||
| Drinking history | 0.562 | 0.454 | ||
| Yes | 22 (29.73) | 29 (35.37) | ||
| No | 52 (70.27) | 53 (64.63) | ||
| Lesion | 0.054 | 0.816 | ||
| Upper left lobe | 16 (21.62) | 20 (24.39) | ||
| Left lower lobe | 8 (10.81) | 9 (10.98) | ||
| Right upper lobe | 17 (22.97) | 17 (20.73) | ||
| Right middle lobe | 10 (13.51) | 10 (12.20) | ||
| Right lower lobe | 23 (31.08) | 26 (31.71) | ||
| Tumor diameter (cm) | 2.81±1.16 | 2.86±1.35 | 0.247 | 0.805 |
| TNM staging | 0.066 | 0.797 | ||
| Phase I | 59 (79.73) | 64 (78.05) | ||
| Phase II | 15 (20.27) | 18 (21.95) | ||
| Pathological type | 0.537 | 0.464 | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 59 (79.73) | 61 (74.39) | ||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 10 (13.51) | 14 (17.07) | ||
| Adenosquamous carcinoma | 5 (6.76) | 7 (8.54) | ||
| Degree of pathological differentiation | 0.105 | 0.746 | ||
| Highly differentiated | 17 (22.97) | 22 (26.83) | ||
| Medium differentiation | 47 (63.51) | 43 (52.44) | ||
| Low differentiation | 10 (13.51) | 17 (20.73) | ||
| ALT (U/l) | 27.47±5.18 | 26.91±6.33 | 0.600 | 0.549 |
| AST (U/l) | 17.18±4.27 | 17.69±4.82 | 0.696 | 0.487 |
| Glu (mmol/l | 5.97±0.38 | 6.06±0.47 | 1.306 | 0.193 |
ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; SD, standard deviation.
Comparison of perioperative indicators between groups A and B (mean ± SD).
| Items | Group A (n=74) | Group B (n=82) | t value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time (min) | 142.63±52.73 | 153.66±51.84 | 1.316 | 0.190 |
| Intraoperative blood loss (ml) | 136.47±42.71 | 173.41±49.27 | 4.978 | <0.001 |
| Postoperative drainage (ml) | 681.21±44.85 | 692.54±38.41 | 1.699 | 0.091 |
| Drainage tube removal time (days) | 4.28±0.93 | 4.51±1.12 | 1.387 | 0.168 |
| Number of lymph node dissections (a) | 14.17±4.18 | 13.87±4.41 | 0.435 | 0.664 |
| Hospital stay (days) | 9.31±1.82 | 11.34±1.32 | 8.029 | <0.001 |
SD, standard deviation.
Comparison of VAS scores at 1 and 7 days after operation between groups A and B (mean ± SD).
| Time points | Group A (n=74) | Group B (n=82) | t value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 5.29±1.34 | 6.28±1.73 | 3.685 | <0.001 |
| T2 | 4.19±1.47 | 5.22±1.58 | 4.170 | <0.001 |
| T3 | 3.13±1.21 | 4.56±1.31 | 6.303 | <0.001 |
| T4 | 2.81±1.38 | 2.87±1.44 | 0.374 | 0.708 |
| T5 | 2.64±1.63 | 2.68±1.13 | 0.689 | 0.492 |
| T6 | 2.35±1.27 | 2.39±1.08 | 0.546 | 0.604 |
| T7 | 2.27±0.46 | 2.31±0.53 | 0.938 | 0.350 |
Figure 1.Comparison of VAS scores at 1 and 7 days after operation between groups A and B. *P<0.001.
Comparison of serum CRP expression levels between groups A and B before and 1–7 days after surgery (mean ± SD, mg/l).
| Time points | Group A (n=74) | Group B (n=82) | t value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before operation | 3.15±1.13 | 3.29±1.27 | 0.724 | 0.470 |
| T1 | 18.64±3.27 | 24.52±2.41 | 12.870 | <0.001 |
| T2 | 14.05±2.29 | 17.49±3.36 | 7.392 | <0.001 |
| T3 | 10.59±1.15 | 13.25±2.18 | 9.382 | <0.001 |
| T4 | 8.25±1.32 | 11.23±2.57 | 8.963 | <0.001 |
| T5 | 7.67±1.59 | 9.67±2.03 | 6.799 | <0.001 |
| T6 | 5.27±1.24 | 7.22±1.94 | 7.390 | <0.001 |
| T7 | 4.38±1.76 | 6.37±1.89 | 6.784 | <0.001 |
Comparison of serum IL-6 expression levels between groups A and B before and 1 to 7 days after surgery (mean ± SD, pg/l).
| Time points | Group A (n=74) | Group B (n=82) | t value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before operation | 21.53±3.18 | 22.37±4.18 | 1.401 | 0.163 |
| T1 | 83.47±18.63 | 94.18±19.67 | 3.482 | <0.001 |
| T2 | 78.20±13.47 | 86.74±13.08 | 4.005 | <0.001 |
| T3 | 54.43±9.85 | 67.36±14.22 | 6.533 | <0.001 |
| T4 | 44.27±7.31 | 51.64±7.58 | 6.167 | <0.001 |
| T5 | 31.74±6.52 | 37.41±7.15 | 5.156 | <0.001 |
| T6 | 24.58±4.28 | 28.47±5.74 | 4.757 | <0.001 |
| T7 | 23.69±3.51 | 26.51±4.28 | 4.471 | <0.001 |
Figure 2.Comparison of serum (A) CRP and (B) IL-6 expression levels between groups A and B before and 1 to 7 days after operation. *P<0.001.
Comparison of postoperative complications between groups A and B [n (%)].
| Groups | n | Pulmonary infection | Lung leak | Atelectasis | Arrhythmia | Incidence rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 74 | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.35) | 2 (2.70) | 6 (8.11) | 12.16 |
| B | 82 | 2 (2.44) | 1 (1.22) | 3 (3.66) | 8 (9.76) | 17.07 |
| χ2 value | – | – | – | – | – | 0.746 |
| P-value | – | – | – | – | – | 0.388 |
Comparison of quality of life between groups A and B before and after operation (mean ± SD).
| Group A (n=74) | Group B (n=82) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Status scores | Before operation | After operation | t value | P-value | Before operation | After operation | t value | P-value |
| Physical status | 19.35±2.81 | 19.25±1.83 | 0.257 | 0.798 | 19.36±2.68 | 19.07±2.13 | 0.743 | 0.459 |
| Functional status | 21.03±2.37 | 20.62±2.13 | 1.107 | 0.270 | 20.71±2.16 | 19.85±2.38 | 1.513 | 0.132 |
| Emotional status | 19.82±2.47 | 19.32±1.94 | 1.369 | 0.173 | 19.44±2.02 | 18.86±1.92 | 1.833 | 0.069 |
| Social status | 18.36±4.28 | 17.33±3.25 | 1.649 | 0.101 | 18.49±4.17 | 17.52±2.86 | 1.737 | 0.084 |
| Additional status | 24.05±5.36 | 23.16±4.03 | 1.142 | 0.256 | 23.51±4.13 | 22.72±3.11 | 1.384 | 0.168 |
| Overall status | 102.15±7.35 | 98.31±5.23 | 3.662 | <0.001[ | 101.36±8.52 | 95.13±5.68 | 5.509 | <0.001[ |
P<0.001 indicates statistical significance.