OBJECTIVES: Lobar lung transplantation (LLTx) from deceased donors is a potential solution for donor-recipient size mismatch for small sized recipients. We reviewed our institutional experience to compare outcomes after LLTx to standard lung transplantation (LTx). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed transplants in our institution from January 2000 to December 2017. LLTx early- and long-term outcomes were compared with LTx. Additional analysis of outcomes was performed after dividing the cohort into 2 eras (era 1, 2000-2012; era 2, 2013-2017). RESULTS: Among the entire cohort (1665), 75 were LLTx (4.5%). Compared with LTx, LLTx were more frequently bridged to transplant with extracorporeal life support or mechanical ventilation and were transplanted in a rapidly deteriorating status (respectively, 20% vs 4.4%, P = .001; 22.7% vs 7.9, P < .001; and 41.3% vs 26.5%, P = .013). LLTx had longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay (respectively, median 17 vs 4 days, and 45 vs 23, both P < .001), and greater 30-day mortality (13.3% vs 4.3%, P = .001) and 90-day mortality (17.3% vs 7.2%, P = .003). In era 2, despite a significantly greater 30-day mortality (10.8% vs 2.8%, P = .026), there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between LLTx and LTx (13.5% vs 5.1%, P = .070). Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was not significantly different between LLTx and LTx (73.2% vs 84.4%, 56.9% vs 68.4% and 50.4% vs 55.8, P = .088). CONCLUSIONS: Although LLTx is a high-risk procedure, both mid- and long-term survival are comparable with LTx in all cohorts in the modern era. LLTx therefore represents a valuable surgical option for small-sized recipients.
OBJECTIVES: Lobar lung transplantation (LLTx) from deceased donors is a potential solution for donor-recipient size mismatch for small sized recipients. We reviewed our institutional experience to compare outcomes after LLTx to standard lung transplantation (LTx). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed transplants in our institution from January 2000 to December 2017. LLTx early- and long-term outcomes were compared with LTx. Additional analysis of outcomes was performed after dividing the cohort into 2 eras (era 1, 2000-2012; era 2, 2013-2017). RESULTS: Among the entire cohort (1665), 75 were LLTx (4.5%). Compared with LTx, LLTx were more frequently bridged to transplant with extracorporeal life support or mechanical ventilation and were transplanted in a rapidly deteriorating status (respectively, 20% vs 4.4%, P = .001; 22.7% vs 7.9, P < .001; and 41.3% vs 26.5%, P = .013). LLTx had longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay (respectively, median 17 vs 4 days, and 45 vs 23, both P < .001), and greater 30-day mortality (13.3% vs 4.3%, P = .001) and 90-day mortality (17.3% vs 7.2%, P = .003). In era 2, despite a significantly greater 30-day mortality (10.8% vs 2.8%, P = .026), there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between LLTx and LTx (13.5% vs 5.1%, P = .070). Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was not significantly different between LLTx and LTx (73.2% vs 84.4%, 56.9% vs 68.4% and 50.4% vs 55.8, P = .088). CONCLUSIONS: Although LLTx is a high-risk procedure, both mid- and long-term survival are comparable with LTx in all cohorts in the modern era. LLTx therefore represents a valuable surgical option for small-sized recipients.