Soon S Y, Saidi G, Ong M L H, Syed A, Codispoti M, Walker W S
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh EH3 9YW, UK.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003 Jul;24(1):149-53; discussion 153. doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(03)00262-8.
Sequential lung volume reduction (LVR) is thought to provide additional and prolonged benefit compared with unilateral LVR. We tested this hypothesis by reviewing physiological, subjective and survival outcome data on patients who underwent sequential or unilateral LVR.
LVR was performed as a unilateral video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) procedure, with bilateral reduction being undertaken in a staged manner. Pulmonary function data were collected prospectively. A telephone survey of patients and general practitioners was used to determine quality of life and survival.
Fifty patients underwent LVR. Twenty-one patients had staged reduction of the contra-lateral lung at a median interval of 9 months. Pre-operatively, patients undergoing sequential LVR were not significantly different from patients undergoing unilateral LVR: forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 23% predicted vs. 27% predicted, KCO 40% vs. 45%, total lung capacity (TLC) 124% vs. 121%, residual volume (RV) 217% vs. 214%, health score 34.5 vs. 30.8. After single-side LVR, both groups demonstrated equivalent and significant improvement in spirometric and subjective health scores: FEV1 +15% predicted (P<0.01), TLC -5% (P=0.03), health score +80% (P<0.01). Patients undergoing sequential reduction demonstrated no further significant improvements using either an intragroup comparison with their pre-second operation values or an intergroup comparison with the unilateral LVR patients. However, sequential LVR appeared to prolong the benefits experienced after the initial surgery by 1 year. Overall, 12 patients (24%) died during follow-up with no survival difference between the two groups (P=0.65).
Sequential LVR is a safe strategy. Undertaking LVR to the second side does not further improve spirometric or subjective performance but does prolong the benefits achieved with the initial reduction.
与单侧肺减容术(LVR)相比,序贯肺减容术被认为能带来额外且持久的益处。我们通过回顾接受序贯或单侧肺减容术患者的生理、主观及生存结局数据来验证这一假设。
肺减容术采用单侧电视辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)进行,双侧减容则分阶段进行。前瞻性收集肺功能数据。通过对患者及全科医生进行电话调查来确定生活质量和生存率。
50例患者接受了肺减容术。21例患者分期对侧肺减容,中位间隔时间为9个月。术前,接受序贯肺减容术的患者与接受单侧肺减容术的患者无显著差异:第1秒用力呼气量(FEV1)预计值分别为23%和27%,一氧化碳弥散量(KCO)分别为40%和45%,肺总量(TLC)分别为124%和121%,残气量(RV)分别为217%和214%,健康评分分别为34.5和30.8。单侧肺减容术后,两组患者的肺量计和主观健康评分均有同等显著改善:FEV1预计值增加15%(P<0.01),TLC减少5%(P=0.03),健康评分增加80%(P<0.01)。接受序贯减容的患者,无论是与第二次手术前的组内比较,还是与单侧肺减容术患者的组间比较,均未显示出进一步的显著改善。然而,序贯肺减容术似乎将初次手术后的益处延长了1年。总体而言,12例患者(24%)在随访期间死亡,两组之间的生存率无差异(P=0.65)。
序贯肺减容术是一种安全的策略。对另一侧进行肺减容术并不能进一步改善肺量计或主观表现,但确实能延长初次减容所带来的益处。