Abstract
Background
Uniportal video‐assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) has undergone significant development in recent years, yet its usefulness and value in the treatment of lung cancer remains controversial. We investigated the effect of uniportal VATS surgery for reducing postoperative thorax drainage in lung cancer patients.
Methods
The data of primary lung cancer patients who underwent VATS anatomical lung resection at the China National Cancer Center by a single surgeon were retrospectively collected. After propensity score matched analysis, 492 patients (246 uniportal VATS, 246 multiportal VATS) were included in the study. The clinicopathologic and surgery‐related features, including drainage volume, were compared. Student's t and chi‐square tests were used; all tests were two‐sided.
Results
Patients in the two groups had similar demographic and clinicopathological features. Patients who underwent uniportal VATS surgery had significantly lower postoperative thorax drainage (830.0 ± 666.0 mL vs. 1014.5 ± 616.9 mL, P = 0.002) and a comparatively lower rate of unplanned return to the operating room (0 vs. 0.8%; P = 0.156) than multiportal VATS patients. The surgical duration, blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay were similar between the groups.
Conclusions
Uniportal VATS could reduce postoperative thorax drainage and the risk of unplanned return to the operating room for lung cancer patients. This study included the largest sample by a single surgeon and our results suggest the potential value of uniportal VATS for the faster recovery of lung cancer patients.
Keywords: Thorax drainage, uniportal, video‐assisted thoracic surgery
Introduction
Surgical resection is the gold standard for the treatment of early stage lung cancer.1, 2 Traditionally, video‐assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) is performed via two to four incisions, with one observation port for the thoracoscope and the others for the procedure.3, 4 In the last decade, however, uniportal VATS, which is performed with all instruments, including the thoracoscope, through a single 3–5 cm incision, has been significantly developed,5, 6 especially for the treatment of early stage lung cancer.7, 8 In this study we focused on the less investigated aspect of uniportal lung cancer resection, the amount of drainage.
It is standard procedure to insert chest tubes after VATS to drain air and fluid. However, chest tubes are known to cause pain, increased risk of infection, longer hospital stay, and slower recovery.9, 10 Thus, the early removal of chest tubes is beneficial to patient recovery. The volume of thorax fluid production is a determinant factor of chest tube removal. Therefore, a reduced drainage volume could shorten the duration of postoperative thoracostomy, which would result in less pain and a faster recovery.11, 12 During our clinical practice, we have observed that patients who undergo uniportal VATS surgery tend to have less postoperative thorax drainage compared to those who undergo multiportal VATS, which has also been reported in previous studies.13 However, the postoperative drainage volume could be affected by many factors other than incisions, including surgical procedures, neoadjuvant therapy, and surgeons.
In our current study, we evaluated the value of uniportal VATS for reducing the thorax drainage volume in lung cancer patients. In order to eliminate the effect of confounding factors that may lead to biased results, we retrospectively analyzed primary lung cancer patients who had undergone VATS by a single surgeon. We compared the postoperative thorax drainage volume, as well as the clinicopathologic and surgery‐related characteristics between patients who underwent uniportal and multiportal VATS.
Methods
This was a single center, retrospective, observational study of primary lung cancer patients who had undergone VATS at the National Cancer Center, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) performed by a single senior thoracic surgeon between February 2015 and September 2017. This study was approved by the medical ethics committee of the Cancer Hospital, CAMS.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The study included primary lung cancer patients who had undergone VATS anatomical lung resection as initial treatment by the same surgeon. The exclusion criteria were: patients who had used antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs within one month before surgery;14 patients with a past history of tuberculosis; patients administered neoadjuvant therapy; and patients who only undergone wedge resection.
Study variables
The clinical features of patients, including gender, age, history of tobacco use, family history of malignant disease, postoperative drainage volume, duration of thoracostomy, and length of stay were obtained from medical records. Pathological variables, including tumor size and tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage, were identified from pathological exams. The TNM stage of the patients was defined according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual (8th edition).15 For patients with multiple nodules, the tumor location was determined by the location of the major lesion. Surgery‐related characteristics, including incisions, procedures, surgical duration, blood loss, and number of lymph nodes dissected, were obtained from surgical records.
Surgical techniques
During the surgery, patients were placed on a lateral decubitus position. Most of the multiportal surgeries were performed using three incisions. A 3–4 cm major working port was made in the middle axillary line in the third interspace for surgery to the upper and middle lobes and in the fourth interspace for lower lobes. A 1 cm camera port in the seventh interspace in the posterior axillary line and a 1.5 cm accessory working port in the ninth interspace in the line scapular line were also made. Wound protectors were applied to both of the working ports and a trocar was used for the camera port. A 10 mm, 30‐degree optic thoracoscope (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) was used for all surgeries. The hilum was dissected using an electrocoagulation hook or ultrasonic scalpel, generally from anterior to posterior. The major vessels, bronchus, pulmonary fissures, or parenchyma were dissected using a stapler. Hilum and intrapulmonary lymph nodes were removed during the lobectomy or sublobectomy. Mediastinal lymph node dissection or sampling was performed after lobectomy. Chest tubes were placed after the surgery and the incisions were closed in layers. A small portion of the surgery was performed using two incisions in the camera and major working ports in a similar position and size as the three portal surgeries.
For uniportal VATS, a 3–4 cm incision was made in the fifth interspace between the posterior and middle axillary line. A wound protector was used and all instruments and the thoracoscope were inserted through this port. Lobectomy/sublobectomy and lymph node dissection/sampling were performed using the same technique as the multiportal surgeries. A 28F silicone chest tube was placed through a muscle tunnel in the same incision.
Statistical analysis
A total of 861 patients were initially selected, among which 246 underwent uniportal VATS and 615 multiportal VATS. Imbalanced distributions of age and TNM stage existed between the groups as a result of the study design. To overcome potential bias, a propensity score matched analysis by 1:1 match was performed, after which 492 patients (246 uniportal VATS, 246 multiportal VATS) were enrolled in the final analysis. Quantitative variables were presented using mean with standard deviation and compared between groups using the Student's t‐test. Categorical variables were presented as percentage and compared using chi‐square or Fisher's exact tests. All tests were two‐sided and statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.
Results
Among the 492 patients enrolled, 229 (46.5%) were male; the average age was 55.6 ± 9.2; and 246 (50%) underwent uniportal VATS, 10 (2%) underwent two‐portal VATS, and 236 (48%) underwent three‐portal VATS. Patients who underwent two‐portal and three‐portal VATS were combined into the multiportal group and compared to patients in the uniportal group.
Demographic and pathological patient features
We analyzed the demographic features of the patients in the multiportal and uniportal groups. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, including age, gender, tobacco use, family history, or comorbidity (Table 1). The majority of the patients had adenocarcinoma (443/492, 90.0%) and there was no significant difference in the pathological subtype between the groups (Table 2). Tumor size and stage were also similar between the groups.
Table 1.
Demographic features of primary lung cancer patients
| Features | Uniportal group (n = 246) | Multiportal group (n = 246) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, ≥ 60 years | 111 (45.1%) | 111 (45.1%) | 1.000 |
| Gender, male | 112 (45.5%) | 117 (47.6%) | 0.651 |
| Tobacco use, yes | 72 (29.3%) | 70 (28.5%) | 0.842 |
| Family history,† yes | 82 (33.3%) | 101 (41.1%) | 0.076 |
| Comorbidity,‡ yes | 74 (30.1%) | 64 (26.0%) | 0.316 |
Family history of malignant tumors.
Major comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and coronary heart diseases. SD, standard deviation.
Table 2.
Pathological features of patients
| Features | Uniportal group (n = 246) | Multiportal group (n = 246) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subtype | 0.587 | ||
| ADC | 220 (89.4%) | 223 (90.7%) | |
| SCC | 16 (6.5%) | 16 (6.5%) | |
| SCLC | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.4%) | |
| Others | 6 (2.4%) | 7 (2.8%) | |
| Tumor size (cm) | 1.88 ± 1.10 | 1.85 ± 1.31 | 0.783 |
| T stage, 0–1 | 172 (69.9%) | 176 (71.5%) | 0.692 |
| N stage | 0.605 | ||
| 0 | 212 (86.2%) | 205 (83.3%) | |
| 1 | 16 (65%) | 17 (6.9%) | |
| 2 | 18 (7.3%) | 24 (9.8%) | |
| TNM stage, 0‐IA | 166 (67.5%) | 166 (67.5%) | 1.000 |
ADC, adenocarcinoma; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; SCLC, small cell lung cancer; TNM, tumor node metastasis.
Surgery and surgery‐related patient features
We then evaluated the surgical features. The proportion of patients who underwent anatomical sublobectomy was significantly higher in the uniportal than in the multiportal group (12.6% vs. 5.7%; P = 0.008), while there were no differences in surgical duration or intro‐operative blood loss (Table 3). The necessity of blood transfusion and the rate of conversion to open surgery were also similar between the groups.
Table 3.
Surgery‐related features of the two groups
| Features | Uniportal group (n = 246) | Multiportal group (n = 246) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedure, sublobectomy | 31 (12.6%) | 14 (5.7%) | 0.008 |
| Surgical duration (min), mean (SD) | 115.8 (42.3) | 119.8 (41.8) | 0.290 |
| Blood loss (ml), mean (SD) | 22.6 (56.8) | 20.8 (32.4) | 0.661 |
| Intro‐operative blood transfusion, yes | 2 (0.8%) | 0 | 0.499 |
| Conversion rate | 2 (0.8%) | 2 (0.8%) | 1.000 |
| Number of LND, mean (SD) | 15.6 (9.1) | 15.3 (7.2) | 0.309 |
LND, lymph node dissection; SD, standard deviation.
The number and stations of lymph node dissection were then compared between the groups. The number of lymph nodes dissected was similar between the groups. This result indicates that uniportal VATS has similar efficacy for lymph node dissection as multiportal VATS for lung cancer patients.
Uniportal VATS conferred lower postoperative thorax drainage volume and lower rate of unplanned operating room return
We evaluated the postoperative recovery of the patients. Comparison showed that the average postoperative thorax drainage volume in patients who underwent uniportal VATS was significantly lower than in multiportal VATS patients (830.0 ± 666.0 mL vs. 1135.6 ± 786.6 mL; P < 0.001) (Table 4, Fig 1). However, the time to chest tube removal was similar between the groups. In addition, none of the patients that underwent uniportal VATS had an unplanned return to the operating room (OR), compared to two out of 246 (0.8%) in the multiportal group. Although the P value was not significant (P = 0.156), the difference was obvious. There was no difference between the groups regarding the necessity for postoperative blood transfusion, complication rates, or postoperative length of hospital stay.
Table 4.
Postoperative recovery of patients
| Features | Uniportal group (n = 246) | Multiportal group (n = 246) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drainage volume (mL), mean (SD) | 830.0 (666.0) | 1014.5 (616.9) | 0.002 |
| Time of chest tube removal (day), mean (SD) | 3.7 (2.2) | 3.6 (2.4) | 0.812 |
| Postoperative blood transfusion, yes | 0 | 2 (0.8%) | 0.499 |
| Complication, yes | 34 (13.8%) | 27 (11.0%) | 0.338 |
| Unplanned return to OR, yes | 0 | 2 (0.8%) | 0.156 |
| Postoperative LOS (day), mean (SD) | 6.5 (2.5) | 6.5 (3.1) | 0.975 |
LN, lymph node; LOS, length of hospital stay; OR, operating room; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 1.
Postoperative thorax drainage volume in the uniportal and multiportal groups.
The difference in drainage volume is caused by the number of incisions
Moreover, we investigated whether the difference in drainage volume between the uniportal and multiportal groups was a result of greater surgical experience in uniportal VATS. For this purpose, we assessed the distribution of drainage volume on the operation date using a four‐month scale. As patient data was retrospectively collected for 32 months (from February 2015 to September 2017), the patients were divided into eight groups. The drainage volume in uniportal and multiportal VATS patients in each four‐month period is shown in Table 5. The results showed that in all but one period, the average drainage volumes of uniportal VATS patients were lower than in multiportal VATS patients. The difference was only statistically significant in one period, which is likely the result of the small sample sizes in each period. These results indicate that the number of incisions was the sole source of the difference in postoperative drainage volume.
Table 5.
Postoperative drainage volume (mL)† in each four‐month period
| VATS | Feb. 2015 – May. 2015 | Jun. 2015‐ Sep. 2015 | Oct. 2015 – Jan. 2016 | Feb. 2016 – May. 2016 | Jun. 2016‐ Sep. 2016 | Oct. 2016 – Jan. 2017 | Feb. 2017 – May. 2017 | Jun. 2017‐ Sep. 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniportal | 753.3 (385.5) | 818.2 (620.5) | 865.0 (577.4) | 675.9 (289.5) | 845.6 (473.0) | 1103.9 (767.3) | 881.0 (939.4) | 791.8 (638.7) |
| Multi‐portal | 845.8 (315.0) | 1158.9 (572.7) | 1017.5 (607.4) | 954.6 (465.6) | 1054.3 (593.4) | 1009.1 (594.2) | 1066.2 (938.0) | 852.5 (432.9) |
| P | 0.498 | 0.113 | 0.356 | 0.007 | 0.222 | 0.588 | 0.382 | 0.688 |
The drainage volume is presented by mean (standard deviation). VATS, video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery.
Discussion
In the present study, we compared the clinicopathologic and surgical features of a cohort of 492 primary lung cancer patients who underwent uniportal or multiportal VATS anatomical lung resection by a single surgeon. Our results showed that uniportal VATS surgery had similar surgical duration, blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, and complication rates as traditional multiportal VATS. Uniportal VATS could also reduce the postoperative thorax drainage volume and the risk of unplanned return to the OR, indicating its potential value for the faster recovery of lung cancer patients.
All of the cases included in our study were primary lung cancer patients who had undergone VATS anatomical sublobectomy or lobectomy (including bilobectomy, pneumonectomy, and sleeve lobectomy). Factors that may have caused bias of the results, such as the use of coagulation‐affecting drugs and neoadjuvant therapy, were eliminated during patient enrollment. Wedge resection cases were also excluded to eliminate the bias caused by different procedures.16, 17 Propensity score matched analysis was applied to overcome any bias that may have been caused by imbalances in patient age and tumor stage. Thus, the surgical difficulty in the two groups is similar. Moreover, we only analyzed surgeries performed by a single surgeon because surgeries performed by different surgeons could have very different outcomes.18, 19 Thus, the results of our study are valid for the strict patient enrollment and large sample size. The lower rates of drainage and unplanned OR return of uniportal VATS were the result of fewer incisions rather than easier cases.
Theoretically, thoracic drainage after VATS results from two factors: interior surgical trauma from lobectomy/sublobectomy plus lymph node dissection, and incisions.10 As uniportal VATS causes the same internal surgical trauma, the reduced number of incisions might result in reduced drainage. This may also apply to postoperative bleeding, which is one of the major reasons that leads to an unplanned return to the OR.20, 21 Thus, fewer incisions also lead to a lower risk of bleeding, which in turn results in a lower rate of unplanned return to the OR. This explains the findings of our study. Both of the cases of unplanned return to the OR in our study were caused by bleeding, which resulted from incisions. These findings further support the conclusion that uniportal VATS has a lower risk of postoperative bleeding and unplanned return to the OR. The P value was not significant in our current study because the return rate in the multiportal group was also very low.
Although patients in the uniportal group experienced less postoperative thoracic drainage, there was no difference in the time to chest tube removal between the groups. This is because our study was a retrospective observation and the removal of the chest tube was not conducted strictly according to a unified standard. This is a major limitation of our current study. Further limitations include the lack of comparison of postoperative pain because this data was not recorded for all patients. These critical indices that reflect the postoperative recovery of patients have been included in our ongoing prospective study. Despite these factors, the findings of our study are important as they provide fundamental evidence of the value of uniportal VATS for the faster recovery of patients.
In summary, our results show that uniportal VATS is comparable to traditional multiportal VATS in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, and postoperative complications for primary lung cancer patients. Uniportal VATS leads to lower postoperative thorax drainage and a lower risk of unplanned return to the OR, indicating its potential value for the faster recovery of lung cancer patients.
We thank Dr. Fan Zhang, Dr. Ziran Zhao, Dr. Wei Guo, Dr. Hao Zhang, Dr. Tiejun Liu, Dr. Peng Song, and Dr. Ruochuan Zang for their hard word in the data collection for this study.
Disclosure
No authors report any conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Beijing Hope Run Foundation (LC2017B24), the National Key R&D Program of China (2016YFC0905400 and 2016YFC0905403), and the Application of Clinical Features of Capital City of Science and Technology Commission China BEIJING Special Subject (Z151100004015188)
References
- 1. Ettinger DS, Wood DE, Aisner DL et al. Non‐small cell lung cancer, version 5.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017; 15: 504–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Goldstraw P, Chansky K, Crowley J et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: Proposals for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (eighth) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 39–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Swanson SJ, Herndon JE 2nd, D'Amico TA et al. Video‐assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy: Report of CALGB 39802‐‐a prospective, multi‐institution feasibility study. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 4993–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Iwata H. Minimally invasive pulmonary surgery for lung cancer, up to date. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 61: 449–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Rocco G, Khalil M, Jutley R. Uniportal video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery wedge lung biopsy in the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 129: 947–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Gonzalez‐Rivas D, Paradela M, Fernandez R et al. Uniportal video‐assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: Two years of experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95: 426–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Chung JH, Choi YS, Cho JH et al. Uniportal video‐assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: An alternative to conventional thoracoscopic lobectomy in lung cancer surgery? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2015; 20: 813–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Reinersman JM, Passera E, Rocco G. Overview of uniportal video‐assisted thoracic surgery (VATS): Past and present. Annal Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 5: 112–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Okur E, Baysungur V, Tezel C et al. Comparison of the single or double chest tube applications after pulmonary lobectomies. Eur J Cardio‐Thorac Surg 2009; 35: 32–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Gottgens KW, Siebenga J, Belgers EH et al. Early removal of the chest tube after complete video‐assisted thoracoscopic lobectomies. Eur J Cardio‐Thorac Surg 2011; 39: 575–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. McKenna RJ Jr, Mahtabifard A, Pickens A et al. Fast‐tracking after video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy, segmentectomy, and pneumonectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 84: 1663–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS. Results of a prospective algorithm to remove chest tubes after pulmonary resection with high output. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135: 269–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Mu JW, Gao SG, Xue Q et al. A matched comparison study of uniportal versus triportal thoracoscopic lobectomy and sublobectomy for early‐stage nonsmall cell lung cancer. Chin Med J (Engl) 2015; 128: 2731–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Yu WS, Jung HS, Lee JG, Kim DJ, Chung KY, Lee CY. Safety of thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer without interruption of anti‐platelet agents. J Thorac Dis 2015; 7: 2024–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Detterbeck FC, Boffa DJ, Kim AW et al. The eighth edition Lung Cancer Stage Classification. Chest 2017; 151: 193–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Icard P, Chautard J, Zhang X et al. A single 24F Blake drain after wedge resection or lobectomy: A study on 100 consecutive cases. Eur J Cardio‐Thorac Surg 2006; 30: 649–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Russo L, Wiechmann RJ, Magovern JA et al. Early chest tube removal after video‐assisted thoracoscopic wedge resection of the lung. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66: 1751–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Xu T, Makary MA, Al Kazzi E et al. Surgeon‐level variation in postoperative complications. J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 20: 1393–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Healy MA, Regenbogen SE, Kanters AE et al. Surgeon variation in complications with minimally invasive and open colectomy: Results from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. JAMA Surg 2017; 152: 860–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Bendixen M, Jorgensen OD, Kronborg C et al. Postoperative pain and quality of life after lobectomy via video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery or anterolateral thoracotomy for early stage lung cancer: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 836–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Solaini L, Prusciano F, Bagioni P, di Francesco F, Poddie DB. Video‐assisted thoracic surgery major pulmonary resections. Present experience. Eur J Cardio‐Thorac Surg 2001; 20: 437–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]