Single-center clinical experience of extended sleeve lobectomy (ESL) versus standard sleeve lobectomy (SL).

BACKGROUND

Sleeve lobectomy (SL) and extended SL (ESL), which aim to preserve pulmonary function and enhance the quality of life of patients while ensuring oncological outcomes, are valuable surgical options for the treatment of centrally located non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to compare perioperative adverse events and long-term survival between SL and ESL in NSCLC patients, providing a comprehensive review of surgical outcomes, complications, and survival to assess the roles of SL and ESL in thoracic oncology.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study assessed the outcomes of NSCLC patients who underwent SL or ESL from June 2014 to January 2022. The patients were selected based on specific inclusion criteria, and statistical analyses were conducted to examine the postoperative outcomes, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) of the patients.

RESULTS

A total of 218 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among 218 patients, 33 underwent ESL and 185 underwent SL. Compared to SL, ESL was associated with longer operative times and higher R0 resection rates (93.9% . 78.8%, P=0.047). Despite the higher complexity of ESL compared to SL, there were no significant differences in the perioperative complications or mortality rates between the groups. Survival analysis was conducted on the propensity score matching (PSM) data, the results demonstrated superior OS and DFS in the ESL group compared to the SL group. Advanced age, more advanced nodal (N) status, and non-R0 resection were significant predictors of poorer prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

ESL is a feasible and effective alternative for treating centrally located NSCLC, with better R0 resection rates and comparable survival outcomes to SL, without increasing the risk of grade III-IV complications. Further studies with larger cohorts need to be conducted to validate these findings and refine the surgical techniques.