HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Soon, S.Y. Articles by Walker, W.S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Soon, S.Y. Articles by Walker, W.S. Related Collections Lung - other Minimally invasive surgery

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003;24:149-153
© 2003 Elsevier Science NL

Sequential VATS lung volume reduction surgery: prolongation of benefits derived after the initial operation

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh EH3 9YW, UK

Received 25 November 2002; received in revised form 31 March 2003; accepted 4 April 2003.

^* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-131-536-1216; fax: +44-131-536-1516
e-mail: wsw{at}holyrood.ed.ac.uk

Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusion: 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.

Key Words: Lung volume reduction • Video assisted thoracoscopic surgery

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Venuta, E. A. Rendina, T. De Giacomo, and G. F. Coloni Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction MMCTS, December 17, 2007; 2007(1217): 2121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Venuta, E. A. Rendina, T. De Giacomo, M. Anile, D. Diso, C. Andreetti, F. Pugliese, and G. F. Coloni Bronchoscopic procedures for emphysema treatment Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2006; 29(3): 281 - 287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D A Lomas Lung volume reduction surgery: where are we now? Chronic Respiratory Disease, January 1, 2004; 1(1): 2 - 4. [PDF]