Outcomes of right sleeve lower lobectomy vs. lower bilobectomy for lung malignancies

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Justin Issard , Geoffrey Brioude , Delphine Mitilian , Dominique Fabre , Vincent Thomas de Montpreville , Amir Hanna , Caroline Caramella , Cécile Lepechoux , Benjamin Besse , Olaf Mercier , Elie Fadel
{"title":"Outcomes of right sleeve lower lobectomy vs. lower bilobectomy for lung malignancies","authors":"Justin Issard ,&nbsp;Geoffrey Brioude ,&nbsp;Delphine Mitilian ,&nbsp;Dominique Fabre ,&nbsp;Vincent Thomas de Montpreville ,&nbsp;Amir Hanna ,&nbsp;Caroline Caramella ,&nbsp;Cécile Lepechoux ,&nbsp;Benjamin Besse ,&nbsp;Olaf Mercier ,&nbsp;Elie Fadel","doi":"10.1016/j.suronc.2024.102100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Lower bilobectomy (LBL) leaves a residual pleural space potentially associated with adverse postoperative outcomes. In selected patients, right sleeve lower lobectomy (RSLL) with anastomosis between the middle lobe bronchus and intermediate bronchus is feasible. The outcomes of RSLL and LBL have not been compared. The aim of this study was to compare post-operative and long-term outcomes of RSLL and LBL in patients with lung cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We retrospectively included patients managed by RSLL or LBL at our referral chest-surgery institution between 2001 and 2019. Post-operative complications and mortality were compared. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to compare overall and disease-free survival rates.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 23 patients with RSLL and 96 with LBL. Postoperative mortality was 9 % after RSLL and 5 % after LBL (<em>p</em> = 0.41). Bronchial fistula developed in 3 (13 %) RSLL patients and 6 (6 %) LBL patients (<em>p</em> = 0.23). Pleural space complications were significantly less common after RSLL (4/23 [17 %] vs. 45/96 [47 %], <em>p</em> = 0.03). Long-term vital capacity was significantly higher in the RSLL group (91 % vs. 64 %, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). Five-year survival did not differ significantly between groups (84 % vs. 72 %, <em>p</em> = 0.09).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>RSLL was associated with similar postoperative mortality and long-term survival compared to LBL. However, pleural space complications were less common and lung function was better after RSLL than after LBL. When feasible, RSLL may deserve preference over LBL in patients with lung cancer managed at highly experienced centres.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51185,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960740424000689","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Lower bilobectomy (LBL) leaves a residual pleural space potentially associated with adverse postoperative outcomes. In selected patients, right sleeve lower lobectomy (RSLL) with anastomosis between the middle lobe bronchus and intermediate bronchus is feasible. The outcomes of RSLL and LBL have not been compared. The aim of this study was to compare post-operative and long-term outcomes of RSLL and LBL in patients with lung cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively included patients managed by RSLL or LBL at our referral chest-surgery institution between 2001 and 2019. Post-operative complications and mortality were compared. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to compare overall and disease-free survival rates.

Results

We identified 23 patients with RSLL and 96 with LBL. Postoperative mortality was 9 % after RSLL and 5 % after LBL (p = 0.41). Bronchial fistula developed in 3 (13 %) RSLL patients and 6 (6 %) LBL patients (p = 0.23). Pleural space complications were significantly less common after RSLL (4/23 [17 %] vs. 45/96 [47 %], p = 0.03). Long-term vital capacity was significantly higher in the RSLL group (91 % vs. 64 %, p < 0.01). Five-year survival did not differ significantly between groups (84 % vs. 72 %, p = 0.09).

Conclusions

RSLL was associated with similar postoperative mortality and long-term survival compared to LBL. However, pleural space complications were less common and lung function was better after RSLL than after LBL. When feasible, RSLL may deserve preference over LBL in patients with lung cancer managed at highly experienced centres.

Abstract Image

右袖状下肺叶切除术与下双叶切除术治疗肺部恶性肿瘤的疗效对比
目的 双下叶切除术(LBL)留下的残余胸膜腔可能与术后不良预后有关。在经过选择的患者中,可行右袖状下叶切除术(RSLL),并在中叶支气管和中间支气管之间进行吻合。RSLL 和 LBL 的疗效尚未进行过比较。本研究旨在比较 RSLL 和 LBL 对肺癌患者的术后和长期疗效。比较了术后并发症和死亡率。绘制了 Kaplan-Meier 曲线,以比较总生存率和无病生存率。RSLL 术后死亡率为 9%,LBL 术后死亡率为 5%(P = 0.41)。3例(13%)RSLL 患者和 6 例(6%)LBL 患者出现支气管瘘(p = 0.23)。RSLL 后胸膜腔并发症的发生率明显较低(4/23 [17 %] vs. 45/96 [47 %],p = 0.03)。RSLL 组的长期生存能力明显更高(91% 对 64%,P = 0.01)。结论与 LBL 相比,RSLL 的术后死亡率和长期存活率相似。但 RSLL 术后胸膜腔并发症较少,肺功能也优于 LBL 术。在可行的情况下,对于在经验丰富的中心接受治疗的肺癌患者来说,RSLL 比 LBL 更受青睐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Surgical Oncology-Oxford
Surgical Oncology-Oxford 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
169
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Surgical Oncology is a peer reviewed journal publishing review articles that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in surgical oncology and related fields of interest. Articles represent a spectrum of current technology in oncology research as well as those concerning clinical trials, surgical technique, methods of investigation and patient evaluation. Surgical Oncology publishes comprehensive Reviews that examine individual topics in considerable detail, in addition to editorials and commentaries which focus on selected papers. The journal also publishes special issues which explore topics of interest to surgical oncologists in great detail - outlining recent advancements and providing readers with the most up to date information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信