Wei Dai1, Zhen Dai2, Xing Wei1, Cecilia Pompili3, Qiu-Ling Shi4, Tian-Peng Xie1, Jin-Tao He1, Qiang Li5. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. Chengdu Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 3. Section of Patient Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute for Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Department of Thoracic Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom. 4. Center for Cancer Prevention Research, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 5. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. Electronic address: liqiang@sichuancancer.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (U-VATS) can achieve traditional clinical outcomes comparable to those of multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (M-VATS). This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes between U-VATS and M-VATS for lung cancer lobectomy in the early postoperative period. METHODS: This comparative analysis used data from a longitudinal prospective study (Perioperative Symptom Study of Lung Cancer [CN-PRO-Lung 1]). Symptom severity, functional status, and quality of life were compared between groups using generalized estimation equation models. Symptom severity and functional status were reported as proportion of patients with clinically meaningful severe scores on 0- to 10-point scales assessed using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer module. RESULTS: Of the 174 patients included, 102 (58.6%) underwent U-VATS lobectomy and 72 (41.4%) underwent M-VATS lobectomy. After adjusting for confounders, patients in the U-VATS group reported less severe pain (P = .02), fatigue (P = .001), constipation (P = .01), coughing (P = .003), shortness of breath (P < .001), and disturbed sleep (P = .007) during the 6-day postoperative hospitalization than did patients in the M-VATS group. Moreover, fewer patients reported severe impairment in walking (P = .033) or their capacity to enjoy life (P = .027) in the U-VATS group. Meanwhile, there were no significant between-group differences in the quality of life scores, operative time, chest tube duration, length of hospital stay, or early complication rate (grade II or higher) (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: U-VATS may produce fewer severe symptoms and better functional status than M-VATS for lung cancer lobectomy in the early postoperative period.
BACKGROUND: Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (U-VATS) can achieve traditional clinical outcomes comparable to those of multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (M-VATS). This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes between U-VATS and M-VATS for lung cancer lobectomy in the early postoperative period. METHODS: This comparative analysis used data from a longitudinal prospective study (Perioperative Symptom Study of Lung Cancer [CN-PRO-Lung 1]). Symptom severity, functional status, and quality of life were compared between groups using generalized estimation equation models. Symptom severity and functional status were reported as proportion of patients with clinically meaningful severe scores on 0- to 10-point scales assessed using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer module. RESULTS: Of the 174 patients included, 102 (58.6%) underwent U-VATS lobectomy and 72 (41.4%) underwent M-VATS lobectomy. After adjusting for confounders, patients in the U-VATS group reported less severe pain (P = .02), fatigue (P = .001), constipation (P = .01), coughing (P = .003), shortness of breath (P < .001), and disturbed sleep (P = .007) during the 6-day postoperative hospitalization than did patients in the M-VATS group. Moreover, fewer patients reported severe impairment in walking (P = .033) or their capacity to enjoy life (P = .027) in the U-VATS group. Meanwhile, there were no significant between-group differences in the quality of life scores, operative time, chest tube duration, length of hospital stay, or early complication rate (grade II or higher) (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: U-VATS may produce fewer severe symptoms and better functional status than M-VATS for lung cancer lobectomy in the early postoperative period.