Wang Changchun, Cai Lei, Chen Qian, Xu Xiaofang, Liang Jinxiao, Mao Weimin, Chen Qixun
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Hangzhou, China.
Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine (ICBM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China.
J Thorac Dis. 2021 Feb;13(2):784-788. doi: 10.21037/jtd-20-2661.
Currently, modified inflation-deflation is considered the easiest way to identify the intersegmental plane during pulmonary segmentectomy. However, this approach requires a wait of about 10-20 min during the operative procedure. Therefore, we optimized the procedure, which we call no-waiting segmentectomy. In this study, we compared no-waiting segmentectomy with the modified inflation-deflation method.
We studied 123 consecutive patients with pulmonary ground-glass nodules who underwent segmentectomy by uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in a single medical group from January 2019 to April 2020. Forty-five patients underwent the modified inflation-deflation method and 78 patients underwent the no-waiting method. The no-waiting procedure involved severing of the target segmental pulmonary artery, inflating the lung with atmospheric air, dissecting the hilum, and dividing the target segmental bronchus. The entire procedure could be performed at a stretch and no pause was needed. We compared the two methods for surgery time, bleeding volume, drainage time, and postoperative hospital stay. Propensity-score matching was used to adjust the baseline characteristics.
Thirty-three pairs of 123 patients were successfully matched. Before propensity-score matching, there was no difference between the two methods in terms of surgery time, bleeding volume, drainage time, and postoperative hospital stay. After propensity-score matching, the surgery time in the no-waiting group was significantly shorter than that in the modified inflation-deflation method group (80.12±35.53 . 102.97±48.07 min, P=0.03). There was no difference between the two methods in terms of bleeding volume, drainage time, and postoperative hospital stay.
No-waiting segmentectomy was associated with a reduced surgery time, compared to that associated with modified inflation-deflation segmentectomy. Furthermore, no-waiting segmentectomy did not increase bleeding volume, drainage time, and postoperative hospital stay. Thus, no-waiting segmentectomy is an optional optimized approach for segmentectomy.
目前,改良的膨胀-萎陷法被认为是肺段切除术中识别节段间平面的最简单方法。然而,这种方法在手术过程中需要等待约10 - 20分钟。因此,我们优化了该手术方法,即无等待节段切除术。在本研究中,我们比较了无等待节段切除术与改良膨胀-萎陷法。
我们研究了2019年1月至2020年4月在单个医疗组中通过单孔电视辅助胸腔镜手术接受节段切除术的123例连续肺磨玻璃结节患者。45例患者采用改良膨胀-萎陷法,78例患者采用无等待法。无等待手术过程包括切断目标节段肺动脉、用大气向肺充气、解剖肺门以及切断目标节段支气管。整个手术过程可以一气呵成,无需停顿。我们比较了两种方法的手术时间、出血量、引流时间和术后住院时间。采用倾向评分匹配法来调整基线特征。
123例患者中的33对成功匹配。在倾向评分匹配前,两种方法在手术时间、出血量、引流时间和术后住院时间方面无差异。倾向评分匹配后,无等待组的手术时间明显短于改良膨胀-萎陷法组(80.12±35.53. 102.97±48.07分钟,P = 0.03)。两种方法在出血量、引流时间和术后住院时间方面无差异。
与改良膨胀-萎陷节段切除术相比,无等待节段切除术的手术时间缩短。此外,无等待节段切除术不会增加出血量、引流时间和术后住院时间。因此,无等待节段切除术是节段切除术的一种可选优化方法。