{"title":"肺癌根治术联合呼吸训练对胸外科肺癌患者的影响:荟萃分析。","authors":"Biao Lu, Xiaobing Li, Hao Jiang","doi":"10.1186/s12890-025-03819-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Its objective was to use meta-analysis (MA) to methodically assess the impact of perioperative breathing exercises on the postoperative rehabilitation of patients with lung cancer (LC) having radical resection. METHODS: PubMed, and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on radical resection of LC combined with perioperative respiratory training from January 1995 to January 2024. After quality assessment, MA was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 studies involving 880 patients were included, of which 434 patients received perioperative breathing training (Intervention group, IG). The differences between the two groups in terms of MIP (MD = -13.31, 95% CI: [-24.43, -2.19]; Z = 2.35, P = 0.02), FVC (MD = -0.23, 95% CI = [-0.36, -0.11]; Z = 3.69, P = 0.0002), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) values (MD = 36.42, 95% CI: [4.37, 68.48]; Z = 2.23, P = 0.03), incidence of pneumonia (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20-0.72; Z = 2.95, P = 0.003), and complication rates (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.46-0.94; Z = 2.29, P = 0.02) were statistically significant. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in MEP (MD = -6.10, 95% CI: [-12.10, -0.11]; Z = 2.00, P = 0.05), FEV1 (MD = -0.25, 95% CI = [-0.58, 0.08]; Z = 1.47, P = 0.14), FEV1/FVC (MD = -3.78, 95% CI = [-7.65, 0.09]; Z = 1.91, P = 0.06), PEF (MD = -15.02, 95% CI = [-45.88, 15.83]; Z = 0.95, P = 0.34), atelectasis (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.24-1.12; Z = 1.68, P = 0.09), pneumothorax (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.63-2.29; Z = 0.57, P = 0.57), and mechanical ventilation incidence (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.34-2.91; Z = 0.01, P = 0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This MA demonstrates that perioperative respiratory training significantly improves MIP, FVC, and 6MWT in patients undergoing radical LC surgery, while effectively reducing the incidence of postoperative pneumonia and overall complications. However, its impact on MEP, certain pulmonary function parameters (FEV1, FEV1/FVC, PEF), and specific complications (atelectasis, pneumothorax, mechanical ventilation requirement) did not reach statistical significance. The findings support the inclusion of respiratory training in perioperative rehabilitation programs for LC patients to optimize postoperative recovery outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9148,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pulmonary Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"410"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12392598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of radical resection of lung cancer combined with breathing training on lung cancer patients in thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Biao Lu, Xiaobing Li, Hao Jiang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12890-025-03819-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Its objective was to use meta-analysis (MA) to methodically assess the impact of perioperative breathing exercises on the postoperative rehabilitation of patients with lung cancer (LC) having radical resection. METHODS: PubMed, and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on radical resection of LC combined with perioperative respiratory training from January 1995 to January 2024. After quality assessment, MA was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 studies involving 880 patients were included, of which 434 patients received perioperative breathing training (Intervention group, IG). The differences between the two groups in terms of MIP (MD = -13.31, 95% CI: [-24.43, -2.19]; Z = 2.35, P = 0.02), FVC (MD = -0.23, 95% CI = [-0.36, -0.11]; Z = 3.69, P = 0.0002), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) values (MD = 36.42, 95% CI: [4.37, 68.48]; Z = 2.23, P = 0.03), incidence of pneumonia (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20-0.72; Z = 2.95, P = 0.003), and complication rates (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.46-0.94; Z = 2.29, P = 0.02) were statistically significant. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in MEP (MD = -6.10, 95% CI: [-12.10, -0.11]; Z = 2.00, P = 0.05), FEV1 (MD = -0.25, 95% CI = [-0.58, 0.08]; Z = 1.47, P = 0.14), FEV1/FVC (MD = -3.78, 95% CI = [-7.65, 0.09]; Z = 1.91, P = 0.06), PEF (MD = -15.02, 95% CI = [-45.88, 15.83]; Z = 0.95, P = 0.34), atelectasis (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.24-1.12; Z = 1.68, P = 0.09), pneumothorax (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.63-2.29; Z = 0.57, P = 0.57), and mechanical ventilation incidence (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.34-2.91; Z = 0.01, P = 0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This MA demonstrates that perioperative respiratory training significantly improves MIP, FVC, and 6MWT in patients undergoing radical LC surgery, while effectively reducing the incidence of postoperative pneumonia and overall complications. However, its impact on MEP, certain pulmonary function parameters (FEV1, FEV1/FVC, PEF), and specific complications (atelectasis, pneumothorax, mechanical ventilation requirement) did not reach statistical significance. The findings support the inclusion of respiratory training in perioperative rehabilitation programs for LC patients to optimize postoperative recovery outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Pulmonary Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"410\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12392598/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Pulmonary Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-025-03819-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pulmonary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-025-03819-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本研究的目的是采用meta分析(MA)系统地评估围手术期呼吸练习对肺癌根治患者术后康复的影响。方法:检索PubMed等数据库,检索1995年1月至2024年1月间LC根治术联合围手术期呼吸训练的随机对照试验。质量评估后,使用Review Manager 5.3软件进行质量分析。结果:共纳入14项研究,共纳入880例患者,其中434例患者接受围手术期呼吸训练(干预组,IG)。两组之间的差异的MIP (MD = -13.31, 95%置信区间CI: [-24.43, -2.19]; Z = 2.35, P = 0.02), FVC (MD = -0.23, 95% CI = [-0.36, -0.11]; Z = 3.69, P = 0.0002), 6分钟步行试验(6 mwt)值(MD = 36.42, 95%置信区间CI: [4.37, 68.48]; Z = 2.23, P = 0.03),肺炎的发病率(OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 = -0.72; Z = 2.95, P = 0.003),和并发症率(OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 = -0.94; Z = 2.29, P = 0.02)都具有统计学意义。然而,两组之间没有明显差异议员(MD = -6.10, 95%置信区间CI: [-12.10, -0.11]; Z = 2.00, P = 0.05),残(MD = -0.25, 95% CI = [-0.58, 0.08]; Z = 1.47, P = 0.14), FEV1 / FVC (MD = -3.78, 95% CI = [-7.65, 0.09]; Z = 1.91, P = 0.06), PEF (MD = -15.02, 95% CI = [-45.88, 15.83]; Z = 0.95, P = 0.34),肺不张(OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.24 = -1.12; Z = 1.68, P = 0.09),气胸(OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.63 - -2.29;Z = 0.57, P = 0.57),和机械通气的发病率(OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.34 = -2.91; Z = 0.01, P = 0.99)。结论:本研究表明围术期呼吸训练可显著提高根治性LC手术患者的MIP、FVC和6MWT,同时有效降低术后肺炎的发生率和总体并发症。但其对MEP、某些肺功能参数(FEV1、FEV1/FVC、PEF)及特定并发症(肺不张、气胸、机械通气需求)的影响均无统计学意义。研究结果支持在LC患者围手术期康复计划中纳入呼吸训练,以优化术后恢复结果。
Effect of radical resection of lung cancer combined with breathing training on lung cancer patients in thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis.
Background: Its objective was to use meta-analysis (MA) to methodically assess the impact of perioperative breathing exercises on the postoperative rehabilitation of patients with lung cancer (LC) having radical resection. METHODS: PubMed, and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on radical resection of LC combined with perioperative respiratory training from January 1995 to January 2024. After quality assessment, MA was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.
Results: A total of 14 studies involving 880 patients were included, of which 434 patients received perioperative breathing training (Intervention group, IG). The differences between the two groups in terms of MIP (MD = -13.31, 95% CI: [-24.43, -2.19]; Z = 2.35, P = 0.02), FVC (MD = -0.23, 95% CI = [-0.36, -0.11]; Z = 3.69, P = 0.0002), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) values (MD = 36.42, 95% CI: [4.37, 68.48]; Z = 2.23, P = 0.03), incidence of pneumonia (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20-0.72; Z = 2.95, P = 0.003), and complication rates (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.46-0.94; Z = 2.29, P = 0.02) were statistically significant. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in MEP (MD = -6.10, 95% CI: [-12.10, -0.11]; Z = 2.00, P = 0.05), FEV1 (MD = -0.25, 95% CI = [-0.58, 0.08]; Z = 1.47, P = 0.14), FEV1/FVC (MD = -3.78, 95% CI = [-7.65, 0.09]; Z = 1.91, P = 0.06), PEF (MD = -15.02, 95% CI = [-45.88, 15.83]; Z = 0.95, P = 0.34), atelectasis (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.24-1.12; Z = 1.68, P = 0.09), pneumothorax (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.63-2.29; Z = 0.57, P = 0.57), and mechanical ventilation incidence (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.34-2.91; Z = 0.01, P = 0.99).
Conclusion: This MA demonstrates that perioperative respiratory training significantly improves MIP, FVC, and 6MWT in patients undergoing radical LC surgery, while effectively reducing the incidence of postoperative pneumonia and overall complications. However, its impact on MEP, certain pulmonary function parameters (FEV1, FEV1/FVC, PEF), and specific complications (atelectasis, pneumothorax, mechanical ventilation requirement) did not reach statistical significance. The findings support the inclusion of respiratory training in perioperative rehabilitation programs for LC patients to optimize postoperative recovery outcomes.
期刊介绍:
BMC Pulmonary Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of pulmonary and associated disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.