RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Uniportal versus multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the treatment of lung cancer: a Canadian single-centre retrospective study
JF Canadian Journal of Surgery
JO CAN J SURG
FD Canadian Medical Association
SP 468
OP 474
DO 10.1503/cjs.001418
VO 62
IS 6
A1 Bin Yameen, Tarek A.
A1 Gupta, Vaibhav
A1 Behzadi, Abdollah
YR 2019
UL http://canjsurg.ca/content/62/6/468.abstract
AB Background: Observational studies comparing uniportal and multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in the treatment of lung cancer have produced conflicting results. We present a Canadian study comparing clinical outcomes of uniportal and multiportal VATS in the treatment of lung cancer.Methods: A retrospective study evaluating patients who underwent multiportal (2012–2014) or uniportal (2014–2016) VATS lobectomies, segmentectomies and wedge resections for lung cancer. Clinical outcomes measured included patient demographics, tumour factors, operative factors, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, analgesic use, pain scores and mortality. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the 2 groups.Results: Of 185 patients, 65 underwent uniportal and 63 underwent multiportal VATS resection. Patients were similar in terms of their baseline demographics, comorbidies and cancer characteristics. Median operative time was 184 and 185 minutes in the uniportal and multiportal groups, respectively. There were 5 conversions to thoracotomy in the uniportal group and 1 in the multiportal group. Similar lymph node retrieval (median 7 v. 5 nodes) and positive margin rates (6.2% v. 4.8%) were seen in the 2 groups. Median length of stay was 2 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1–3) and 3 days (IQR 2–4) in the uniportal and multiportal groups, respectively. Rates of postoperative complications were similar in the 2 groups (16.9% v. 19.0%, p = 0.76). Patient-controlled analgesia use and pain scores did not differ between the groups.Conclusion: Adoption of uniportal VATS appears to be feasible and safe, without compromising oncologic principles or increasing intraoperative resource utilization. Larger, prospective studies can help confirm these findings.