Sleeve Lobectomy for Centrally Located Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Does Incision Size Really Matter?

Comparison of Sleeve Lobectomy for Lung Cancer Using Mini-Thoracotomy and an Optimized Robot-Assisted Technique

Objective: To evaluate the clinical significance of an optimized approach to improve surgical field visualization and simplify anastomosis techniques using robotic-assisted sleeve lobectomy for lung or bronchial carcinoma. Method: A total of 26 consecutive patients who underwent sleeve lobectomy between January 2017 and April 2020 were enrolled in the study. The cohort included 11 cases of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS group) and 15 cases of mini-thoracotomy (MT group). RAS was performed via an exclusive optimized approach utilizing the "3 to 4-6 to 8/9" four-port technique. Retrieved demographical and clinical data included operation time, anastomosis time, blood loss, chest drainage time and volume, postoperative pain scores, complications, white blood cell (WBC) levels, and duration of hospital stay and follow-up. Results: No cases of perioperative death were recorded. Compared to MT group, the RAS group had a similar anastomosis time (30.82  ±  6.08 vs 33.20  ±  7.73 min, respectively, p > 0.05) and shorter operation time (189.73  ±  36.41 vs 225.33  ±  38.19 min, respectively, p < 0.05). The RAS group had lower pain scores (4.23  ±  0.26 vs 4.91  ±  0.51, p < 0.05), lower levels of WBC (p < 0.05), and no anastomotic complications postoperatively. The RAS and MT groups demonstrated a successful bronchus reconstruction with low risk of angulation (1/11 vs 1/15, p > 0.05) and satisfactory disease-free survival (eight cases, 72.73% and 12 cases, 80%, respectively). Conclusion: The optimized approach to RA sleeve lobectomy is convenient and efficient and provides satisfactory clinical outcomes. Further study with a large sample size and evaluation of long-term survival are warranted. Key points: (i) we present a novel, convenient, and efficient approach for robotic-assisted sleeve lobectomy, ie, "3 to 4-6 to 8/9" four-port technique. The optimized approach for RA sleeve lobectomy is convenient and efficient and provides satisfactory clinical outcomes; (ii) details for the "3 to 4-6 to 8/9" four-port method: the assistant port was located at the fourth intercostal space. The 1-cm camera port was inserted at the sixth intercostal space in the posterior axillary line. The 0.5-cm da Vinci ports of the instrument arms were placed at the third intercostal space in the anterior axillary line and the eighth or ninth intercostal space in the posterior axillary line. The patient cart was inserted from the back of the patient's head and shoulders at 75° to the longitudinal line.

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Sleeve Lobectomy for Centrally Located Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) sleeve lobectomy could be an alternative to traditional thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy in treating centrally located non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted the first meta-analysis to compare the effects of VATS sleeve lobectomy with thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy.

METHODS

We systematically searched relevant studies from Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science on May 12, 2020. Data for analysis included short-term outcomes (blood loss, lymph node dissected, operation time, hospital stay, complications) and long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates). We calculated the weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous data and risk ratio (RR) for pooling categorical data.

RESULTS

We finally included 5 retrospective cohort study consisting of 436 patients. VATS sleeve lobectomy yielded significantly less blood loss (WMD =  -37.83; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) = [-58.56, -17.11]; P < 0.001) than thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy and comparable total number of dissected lymph node to thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy (WMD =  - 0.07; 95%CI = [-1.14, 0.99]; P = 0.89). However, VATS sleeve lobectomy consumed significantly more operation time than thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy (WMD = 49.00; 95%CI = [14.67, 83.34]; P = 0.005). VATS sleeve lobectomy yielded significantly less postoperative hospital stay time than thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy (WMD =   -1.68; 95%CI = [-2.98, -0.39]; P = 0.011) and comparable postoperative complication rate to thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy (RR = 0.84; 95%CI = [0.49, 1.44]; P = 0.52). Moreover, VATS sleeve lobectomy yielded comparable 3-year OS (RR = 1.08; 95%CI = [0.95, 1.22]; P = 0.23) and PFS (RR = 1.15; 95%CI = [0.96, 1.37]; P = 0.13) rates to thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy. No significant heterogeneities were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

VATS sleeve lobectomy yielded less surgical trauma than thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy and improved postoperative recovery without compromising oncological prognosis. Even though VATS sleeve lobectomy may consume more operation time, it could be recommended as an alternative to thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy for treating centrally located NSCLC in carefully selected cases.