OBJECTIVES: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy has been associated with improved pain, length of stay, and outcomes compared with open lobectomy. However, enhanced recovery protocols improve outcomes after both procedures. We aimed to compare video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and open lobectomy in the setting of a comprehensive enhanced recovery protocol. METHODS: All patients undergoing lobectomy for lung cancer at a single institution since the adoption of an enhanced recovery protocol (May 2016 to December 2018) were stratified by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open status and compared. Demographics and outcomes, including length of stay, daily pain scores, and short-term operative complications, were compared using standard univariate statistics and multivariable models. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients underwent lobectomy, including 71 (54.6%) undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and 59 (45.4%) undergoing open surgery. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open cases exhibited similar length of stay (median 4 days for both, P = .07), opioid requirement (33.2 vs 30.8 mg morphine equivalents, P = .86), and pain scores at 0, 1, 2, and 3 days after surgery (4.3 vs 2.8, P = .12; 4.4 vs 3.7, P = .27; 3.9 vs 3.5, P = .83; and 3.4 vs 3.5, P = .98, respectively). Patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy exhibited lower rates of readmission (1.4% vs 17.0%, P < .01), postoperative transfusion requirement (0% vs 10.2%, P < .01), and pneumonia (1.4% vs 10.2%, P = .05). After risk adjustment, an open procedure (vs video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery status) did not significantly affect the length of stay (effect 0.18; P = .10) or overall complication rate (odds ratio, 1.9; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a comprehensive enhanced recovery protocol, patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open lobectomy exhibited similar short-term outcomes. Surgical incision may have less impact on outcomes in the setting of a comprehensive thoracic enhanced recovery protocol.
OBJECTIVES: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy has been associated with improved pain, length of stay, and outcomes compared with open lobectomy. However, enhanced recovery protocols improve outcomes after both procedures. We aimed to compare video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and open lobectomy in the setting of a comprehensive enhanced recovery protocol. METHODS: All patients undergoing lobectomy for lung cancer at a single institution since the adoption of an enhanced recovery protocol (May 2016 to December 2018) were stratified by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open status and compared. Demographics and outcomes, including length of stay, daily pain scores, and short-term operative complications, were compared using standard univariate statistics and multivariable models. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients underwent lobectomy, including 71 (54.6%) undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and 59 (45.4%) undergoing open surgery. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open cases exhibited similar length of stay (median 4 days for both, P = .07), opioid requirement (33.2 vs 30.8 mg morphine equivalents, P = .86), and pain scores at 0, 1, 2, and 3 days after surgery (4.3 vs 2.8, P = .12; 4.4 vs 3.7, P = .27; 3.9 vs 3.5, P = .83; and 3.4 vs 3.5, P = .98, respectively). Patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy exhibited lower rates of readmission (1.4% vs 17.0%, P < .01), postoperative transfusion requirement (0% vs 10.2%, P < .01), and pneumonia (1.4% vs 10.2%, P = .05). After risk adjustment, an open procedure (vs video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery status) did not significantly affect the length of stay (effect 0.18; P = .10) or overall complication rate (odds ratio, 1.9; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a comprehensive enhanced recovery protocol, patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open lobectomy exhibited similar short-term outcomes. Surgical incision may have less impact on outcomes in the setting of a comprehensive thoracic enhanced recovery protocol.
Authors: Karishma Kodia; Joy A Stephens-McDonnough; Ahmed Alnajar; Nestor R Villamizar; Dao M Nguyen Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Adwaiy Manerikar; Melissa Querrey; Emily Cerier; Samuel Kim; David D Odell; Lorenzo L Pesce; Ankit Bharat Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 2.417
Authors: Terrance Peng; Kimberly A Shemanski; Li Ding; Elizabeth A David; Anthony W Kim; Michael Kim; Dustin K Lieu; Sean C Wightman; Jasmine Zhao; Scott M Atay Journal: World J Surg Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 3.352