Staged unilateral lung volume reduction surgery: from mini-invasive to minimalist treatment strategies

Surgical and bronchoscopic pulmonary function-improving procedures in lung emphysema

COPD is a highly prevalent, chronic and irreversible obstructive airway disease without curative treatment. Standard therapeutic strategies, both non-pharmacological and pharmacological, have only limited effects on lung function parameters of patients with severe disease. Despite optimal pharmacological treatment, many patients with severe COPD still have a high burden of dyspnoea and a poor quality of life. If these patients have severe lung emphysema, with hyperinflation as the driver of symptoms and exercise intolerance, lung volume reduction may be an effective treatment with a significant impact on lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life. Currently, different lung volume reduction approaches, both surgical and bronchoscopic, have shown encouraging results and have been implemented in COPD treatment recommendations. Nevertheless, choosing the optimal lung volume reduction strategy for an individual patient remains challenging. Moreover, there is still room for improving durability of effect and safety in all available procedures. Ongoing and innovative research is essential to push this field forwards. This review provides an overview of results and limitations of the current lung volume reduction options for patients with severe lung emphysema and hyperinflation.

[Treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema]

We summarized the available data on therapeutic, surgical and endoscopic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema that may be used like a bridge to lung transplantation. Treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema is expensive. Certain limitations in lung transplantation make to create new methods of treatment of severe emphysema. However, one should be ready for possible complications and carefully select patients for certain treatment to avoid false negative results. Reducing costs or developing cheaper treatments is important for the future and availability of care. The risks and complications associated with surgical treatment of emphysema can make endoscopic surgery preferable for these patients, and this undoubtedly requires further research.

Quasilobar minimalist lung volume reduction surgery

 

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to assess the results and the costs of the quasilobar minimalist (QLM) thoracoscopic lung volume reduction (LVR) surgical method developed to minimize the trauma from the operation and the anaesthesia and to maximize the effect of the lobar volume reduction.

METHODS

Forty patients with severe emphysema underwent QLM-LVR that entailed adoption of sole intercostal block analgesia and lobar plication through a single thoracoscopic incision. Results were compared after propensity matching with 2 control groups undergoing non-awake resectional LVR with double-lumen tracheal intubation or awake non-resectional LVR by plication with thoracic epidural anaesthesia. As a result, we had 3 matched groups of 30 patients each.

RESULTS

Baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s, residual volume, the 6-min walking test and the modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea index were 0.77 ± 0.18, 4.97 ± 0.6, 328 ± 65 and 3.3 ± 0.7, respectively, with no intergroup difference after propensity score matching. The visual pain score was better (P < 0.007), the hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.04) and overall costs were lower (P < 0.04) in the QLM-LVR group than in the control groups. The morbidity rate was lower with QLM-LVR than with non-awake resectional-LVR (P = 0.006). Significant improvements (P < 0.001) occurred in all study groups during the follow-up period. At 24 months, improvements in residual volume and dyspnoea index were significantly better with QLM-LVR (P < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

QLM-LVR proved safe and showed better perioperative outcomes and lower procedure-related costs than the control groups. Similar clinical benefit occurred at 12 months, but absolute improvements in residual volume and dyspnoea index were better in the QLM-LVR group at 24 months.