Abstract
Objectives
The aim of this study is to compare the postoperative complications, perioperative course, and survival among patients from the multicentric Spanish Video-assisted Thoracic Surgery Group database who received video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy or video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy.
Methods
From December 2016 to March 2018, a total of 2250 patients were collected from 33 centers. Overall analysis (video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy = 2070; video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy = 180) and propensity score–matched adjusted analysis (video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy = 97; video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy = 97) were performed to compare postoperative results. Kaplan–Meier and competing risks method were used to compare survival.
Results
In the overall analysis, video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy showed a lower incidence of respiratory complications (relative risk, 0.56; confidence interval, 0.37-0.83; P = .002), lower postoperative prolonged air leak (relative risk, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.78; P = .003), and shorter median postoperative stay (4.8 vs 6.2 days; P = .004) than video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy. After propensity score–matched analysis, prolonged air leak remained significantly lower in video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy (relative risk, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.89; P = .02). Kaplan–Meier and competing risk curves showed no differences during the 3-year follow-up (median follow-up in months: 24.4; interquartile range, 20.8-28.3) in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.7; P = .2), tumor progression–related mortality (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-1.57; P = .2), and disease-free survival (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.51; P = .4) between groups.
Conclusions
Video-assisted thoracic surgery segmentectomy showed results similar to lobectomy in terms of postoperative outcomes and midterm survival. In addition, a lower incidence of prolonged air leak was found in patients who underwent video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy.
Key Words: anatomic segmentectomy, lobectomy, lung cancer, sublobar resection, thoracoscopy, VATS
Abbreviations and Acronyms: CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range; RR, relative risk; VASG, VATS anatomic segmentectomy group; VATS, video-assisted thoracic surgery; VLG, VATS lobectomy group
Graphical abstract
VATS anatomic segmentectomy is a suitable treatment for select patients with lung cancer.
Central Message.
VATS anatomic segmentectomy is a suitable treatment for lung cancer with outcomes comparable to those of VATS lobectomy.
Perspective.
VATS anatomic segmentectomy was associated with some postoperative improved outcomes, with no survival difference in patients with lung cancer compared with VATS lobectomy. VATS segmentectomy is a suitable treatment in select patients with lung cancer with outcomes comparable to those of lobectomy.
See Commentary on page 279.
Parenchymal-sparing resections could be important in patients with small pulmonary lesions, decreased pulmonary reserve, poor performance, or previous lung resections.1, 2, 3 Over time, improvements in imaging and wider use of screening have allowed earlier detection of treatable lung lesions.4 As video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) continues to expand, a special interest in thoracoscopic sublobar procedures has naturally arisen among thoracic surgeons.5, 6, 7, 8 There are still few and limited studies that compare the postoperative outcomes of VATS anatomic segmentectomy versus VATS lobectomy.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 The main advantage previously described is the value of lung preservation after segmentectomy but at the cost of prolonged air leaks.9,10 This study aims to compare the postoperative outcomes and midterm survival between VATS anatomic segmentectomy and lobectomy in 2250 patients from the prospective multicentric Spanish Video-assisted Thoracic Surgery Group database.
Materials and Methods
Patients
In 2016, the Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery developed a prospective multicentric database with the participation of 33 certified Spanish thoracic surgery centers, all of them members of the Spanish Video-assisted Thoracic Surgery Group.14 This project was approved by the ethics committees of all the participating centers, and informed consent was obtained from the recruited patients to use their clinical data for scientific purposes (PI15/0072, 20/05/2015). Each center included all consecutive patients undergoing VATS anatomic lung resections from December 20, 2016, to March 20, 2018. Inclusion criteria were patients aged more than 18 years undergoing VATS anatomic lung resections (lobectomy or segmentectomy). Wedge resections, bilateral procedures, pneumonectomies, bilobectomies, non-VATS interventions, and those VATS procedures that required conversion to thoracotomy were excluded. Patients were then included in the VATS lobectomy group (VLG) or the VATS anatomic segmentectomy group (VASG).
Surgical Technique
VATS cases were defined as the absence of rib separation (regardless number of incisions) and the visualization performed via the optic system alone (Video 1). Anatomic segmentectomy was defined as any sublobar resection following the intersegmental plane with individual division of arterial, venous, and bronchial branches from the involved segment. In lung cancer cases, lymphadenectomy was performed by sampling or systematic lymph node dissection.15
Descriptive, Explicative, and Outcome Variables
All descriptive and outcome variables were adapted from the standardization documents of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons.16 Cases of postoperative morbidity and mortality included those occurring during the first 30 days after surgery. Two composite dependent variables were defined: Severe complications included death or any complication considered IIIb or worse in the Clavien-Dindo classification,17 and respiratory complications were defined as the presence of any respiratory complication listed in Table 1. In a 3-year follow-up, overall survival, tumor-progression survival, and disease-free survival were also evaluated. The explanatory predictive variable was the type of VATS resection (anatomic segmentectomy vs lobectomy).
Table 1.
Unadjusted analysis of results
| VLG (N = 2070) | VASG (N = 180) | RR/MD | 95% CI | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Severe complications∗ | 73 (3.5%) | 4 (2.2%) | 0.63 | 0.23-1.70 | .36 |
| Postoperative mortality | 22 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | 1.05 | 0.25-4.41 | .95 |
| Clavien–Dindo IIIb | 30 (1.5%) | 0 | 0 | .1 | |
| Clavien–Dindo IVa | 24 (1.2%) | 3 (1.7%) | 1.44 | 0.44-4.73 | .55 |
| Clavien–Dindo IVb | 7 (0.3%) | 0 | 0 | .43 | |
| Respiratory complications | 455 (21.0%) | 22 (12.2%) | 0.56 | 0.37-0.83 | .002 |
| Prolonged intubation | 2 (0.1%) | 0 | 0 | .68 | |
| Reintubation | 23 (1.1%) | 1 (0.6%) | 0.50 | 0.07-3.68 | .49 |
| Prolonged air leak (>5 d) | 272 (13.1%) | 10 (5.6%) | 0.42 | 0.23-0.78 | .003 |
| Pleural effusion/pneumothorax | 49 (2.4%) | 2 (1.1%) | 0.47 | 0.12-1.91 | .28 |
| Atelectasis | 71 (3.4%) | 7 (3.9%) | 1.13 | 0.53-2.43 | .75 |
| Pneumonia | 72 (3.5%) | 4 (2.2%) | 0.64 | 2.24-1.73 | .37 |
| ARDS | 18 (0.9%) | 0 | 0 | .21 | |
| Bronchopleural fistula | 8 (0.4%) | 0 | 0 | .40 | |
| Empyema | 13 (0.6%) | 0 | 0 | .27 | |
| Chylothorax | 3 (0.1%) | 1 (0.6%) | 3.83 | 0.4-36.7 | .21 |
| Pulmonary thromboembolism | 5 (0.2%) | 0 | 0 | .51 | |
| Other respiratory complications | 42 (2.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 0.27 | 0.04-1.98 | .17 |
| Reintervention | 60 (2.9%) | 4 (2.2%) | 0.77 | 0.28-2.08 | .6 |
| Wound infection | 23 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | 1 | 0.24-4.21 | 1 |
| Cardiovascular complications | 108 (5.2%) | 8 (4.4%) | 0.85 | 0.42-1.72 | .65 |
| Blood transfusion | 21 (1.0%) | 4 (2.2%) | 2.19 | 0.76-6.39 | .14 |
| Other complications | 114 (5.5%) | 11 (6.1%) | 1.11 | 0.61-20.2 | .73 |
| Perioperative outcomes | |||||
| Surgical time (min) | 180 | 177 | 3.7 | −6.5 to 13.9 | .47 |
| Type of care | .32 | ||||
| Basic care | 278 (13.4%) | 20 (11.1%) | |||
| Intermediate care | 668 (32.3%) | 70 (38.9%) | |||
| Intensive care unit | 1123 (54.3%) | 90 (50.0%) | |||
| Intraoperative death | 1 (0.1%) | 0 | 0 | .76 | |
| Postoperative stay (d) | 6.2 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.43-2.31 | .004 |
| Readmission | 109 (5.5%) | 6 (3.5%) | 0.64 | 0.28-1.43 | .26 |
| Intermediate care or ICU readmission | 69 (3.3%) | 7 (3.9%) | 1.17 | 0.54-2.50 | .69 |
VLG, VATS lobectomy group; VASG, VATS anatomic segmentectomy; RR, relative risk; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval; ARDS, Acute respiratory distress syndrome; ICU, intensive care unit.
Severe complications: death or any complication considered IIIb or superior in the Clavien-Dindo classification.
Patients' Follow-up
Patients' follow-up included computed tomography every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for second year, and yearly thereafter.
Statistical Analysis
Data were processed and explored. Variables with more than 10% missing values were deleted. For descriptive analysis, continuous variables were tested for normal distribution (Shapiro–Wilk test) and homoscedasticity (Levene test). Normally distributed variables were reported as mean and standard deviation, and non-normal variables were reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Mean differences were assessed with a t test. Categorical variables were reported as absolute (count) and relative (percentage) frequencies and compared with a chi-square test. Dependent variables were postoperative complications and perioperative course (Table 1). The remaining descriptive variables were considered for statistical adjustment. An unadjusted analysis was performed for outcome variables. Risk ratio was used as association measure for categorical variables. Continuous and multicategorical variables were tested for mean or frequency differences. For adjusted analysis, a propensity score–matched 1:1 sample was selected using logistic regression with the nearest neighbor method and a caliper of 0.1. All descriptive variables showing significant differences between groups was included in the model. Baseline characteristics were checked again in the matched sample. Adjusted analyses with relative risk (RR) and mean/frequencies comparison were performed in the propensity score–matched sample. A risk ratio confidence interval (CI) excluded the value one. Survival analysis was performed with the resulting groups after propensity matching.
For the univariate analysis of survival, the Kaplan–Meier method was used. Global survival curves were compared with log-rank test. Mortality by a specific cause and recurrences were analyzed by competing risks method because other-cause mortality is a competing risk for relapse and disease-related mortality. Survival between groups was assessed with the Gray test. Stata 14 Statistical Software: Release 14 (StataCorp LP) was used for the analysis.
Results
The analysis identified 2070 patients in the VLG, 1404 male and 666 female, with a median age of 66 years (IQR, 59-73); and 180 patients in the VASG, 124 male and 56 female, with a median age of 67 years (IQR, 59-74).
Overall Results
Preoperatively (Table 2), the VLG showed less frequency of previous thoracic surgery (4.7% vs 10%; P = .001), previous oncological history (37.8% vs 49.4%; P < .001), and better predicted postoperative diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (72.9% vs 65.7%; P = .001), whereas the VASG exhibited better predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 second (75.2% vs 72.2%; P = .001). Upper lobectomies were the most frequent procedures in the VLG, whereas left upper trisegmentectomy was the most frequent in the VASG. Primary lung cancer was the most frequent diagnosis in both groups but more prevalent in VLG (87.9% vs 70%; P = .001). The majority of cases were performed by the biportal or multiportal VATS approach (91.3% of all cases) (Videos 1 and 2).
Table 2.
Patient demographics and baseline characteristics
| Variables: Median (IQR) or No. (%) | VLG (N = 2070) | VASG (N = 180) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 66 (59, 73) | 67 (59, 74) | .9678 |
| Sex (male) | 1404 (67.8%) | 124 (68.9%) | .77 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.6 (23.7, 29.7) | 26.6 (24.2, 29.7) | .65 |
| Smokers (current or ex-smokers) | 1707 (82.5%) | 136 (75.5%) | .04 |
| Previous thoracic surgery | 96 (4.7%) | 18 (10.0%) | .001 |
| Ipsilateral | 32 (1.6%) | 4 (2.2%) | |
| Contralateral | 53 (2.6%) | 14 (7.8%) | |
| Bilateral | 11 (0.5%) | 0 | |
| Previous oncological disease | 719 (37.8%) | 89 (49.4%) | <.001 |
| Previous lung cancer | 53 (2.9%) | 14 (11.1%) | <.001 |
| Predicted postoperative FEV1 (%s) | 72.2 (61.2, 84.5) | 75.2 (62.6, 90.9) | .002 |
| Predicted postoperative DLCO (%) | 65.7 (54.7, 78.1) | 72.9 (59.9, 85.9) | .001 |
| Diagnosis | .001 | ||
| Lung carcinoma | 1819 (87.9%) | 126 (70.0%) | |
| Lung metastases | 141 (6.8%) | 31 (17.2%) | |
| Other | 110 (5.3%) | 23 (12.8%) | |
| Pathologic stage | <.001 | ||
| 0 | 14 (0.8%) | 5 (4.0%) | |
| I | 1178 (56.9%) | 101 (56.1%) | |
| II | 344 (16.6%) | 8 (4.4%) | |
| III | 216 (10.4%) | 7 (3.9%) | |
| IV | 27 (1.3%) | 3 (1.7%) | |
| Tumor location | <.001 | ||
| Central | 501 (27.6%) | 15 (11.9%) | |
| Peripheral | 1317 (72.4%) | 111 (88.10%) | |
| ASA | .57 | ||
| I | 50 (2.4%) | 5 (2.8%) | |
| II | 907 (43.9%) | 70 (38.9%) | |
| III | 1066 (51.6%) | 102 (56.7%) | |
| IV | 44 (2.1%) | 3 (1.7%) | |
| Hemithorax | <.001 | ||
| Right | 1302 (62.9%) | 54 (30.0%) | |
| Left | 768 (37.1%) | 126 (70.0%) | |
| No. of incisions | <.001 | ||
| 1 | 176 (8.5%) | 34 (18.9%) | |
| 2 | 1349 (65.2%) | 114 (63.3%) | |
| Multiportal (≥3) | 545 (26.3%) | 32 (17.8%) | |
| Lobes or segments resected | 2070 (100.0%) | 180 (100.0%) | N/A |
| Right upper lobectomy | 757 (36.6%) | ||
| Middle lobectomy | 150 (7.2%) | ||
| Right lower lobectomy | 393 (19.0%) | ||
| Left upper lobectomy | 444 (21.5%) | ||
| Left lower lobectomy | 326 (15.8%) | ||
| S1 | 15 (8.3%) | ||
| S2 | 9 (5.0%) | ||
| S3 | 8 (4.4%) | ||
| S6 | 31 (17.2%) | ||
| Basal pyramid | 10 (5.6%) | ||
| Nonbasal pyramid lower segmentectomies (S7, S8, S9, S10 or combination) | 5 (2.8%) | ||
| S1 + S2 | 5 (2.8%) | ||
| Left S1 + S2 + S3 | 59 (32.8%) | ||
| Left S4 + S5 | 24 (13.3%) | ||
| Other combination | 14 (7.8%) |
IQR, Interquartile range; VLG, VATS lobectomy group; VASG, VATS anatomic segmentectomy group; BMI, body mass index; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; DLCO, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; N/A, not applicable.
In the postoperative data analysis (Table 1), VASG showed less respiratory complications (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.83; P = .002), less postoperative prolonged air leak (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.78; P = .003), and shorter postoperative stay (4.8 vs 6.2 days; P = .004). Severe complications were lower in VASG, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.23-1.70; P = .36). No other significant differences were found.
Matched Results
After propensity score–matching analysis, a sample of 97 VASG patients were 1:1 matched to 97 VLG patients (Table 3) according to the following variables: smokers, previous thoracic surgery, previous oncological disease, previous lung cancer, postoperative predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, postoperative predicted diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, diagnosis, stage, tumor location, hemithorax, and number of incisions. All patients in both groups had a diagnosis of primary lung cancer, and there were no significant differences in the preoperative variables, including staging. The VLG showed a greater number of lymph nodes resected (6 [IQR, 4-10] vs 4 [IQR, 2.5-8]; P = .001) and a greater number of hilar-mediastinal stations resected (3 [IQR, 3-4] vs 3 [IQR, 2-3]; P = .01). However, neither intrapulmonary (4.1% vs 2.1%; P = .407) nor hilar-mediastinal (10.3% vs 8.3%; P = .39) lymph nodes involvement showed differences between groups.
Table 3.
Patient demographics and characteristics after propensity score matching
| Variables: Median (IQR) or number (%) | VLG (N = 97) | VASG (N = 97) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 67 (61, 72) | 69 (61, 74) | .5998 |
| Sex (male) | 97 (62.9%) | 97 (66.0%) | .653 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.7 (25.0, 30.8) | 26.7 (24.2, 30.0) | .1521 |
| Smokers (current or ex-smoker) | 82 (84.5%) | 81 (83.5%) | .957 |
| Previous thoracic surgery | .747 | ||
| No | 86 (88.9%) | 88 (90.7%) | |
| Ipsilateral | 3 (3.1%) | 2 (2.1%) | |
| Contralateral | 7 (7.2%) | 7 (7.2%) | |
| Bilateral | 1 (1.0%) | 0 | |
| Previous oncological disease | 30 (38.1%) | 41 (42.3%) | .558 |
| Predicted postoperative FEV1 (%) | 75.9 (63.4, 86.8) | 72.47 (59.7, 86.8) | .8019 |
| Predicted postoperative DLCO (%) | 70.7 (61.6, 82.5) | 73.1 (56.4, 85) | .90 |
| Diagnosis | 1 | ||
| Lung carcinoma | 97 (100%) | 97 (100%) | |
| Histology | .5 | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 63 (64.9%) | 55 (56.7%) | |
| Epidermoid | 22 (22.7%) | 26 (26.8) | |
| Others | 12 (12.4%) | 16 (16.5%) | |
| Tumor size (mm) | 17 (12, 25) | 15 (12, 20) | .09 |
| Pathologic stage | .97 | ||
| 0 | 5 (5.2%) | 4 (4.1%) | |
| IAI | 15 (15.5%) | 16 (16.5%) | |
| IA2 | 38 (39.2%) | 41 (42.3%) | |
| IA3 | 6 (6.2%) | 9 (9.3%) | |
| IB | 12 (12.4%) | 13 (13.4%) | |
| IIA | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (1.0%) | |
| IIB | 10 (10.3%) | 5 (5.6%) | |
| IIIA | 8 (8.3%) | 6 (6.2%) | |
| IIIB | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (1.0%) | |
| IVB | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (1.0%) | |
| Lymph nodes resected | 6 (4, 10) | 4 (2.5, 8) | .001 |
| Hilar-mediastinal∗ stations resected | 3 (3, 4) | 3 (2, 3) | .01 |
| Patients with pathological hilar-mediastinal lymph node involvement | 11 (11.3%) | 9 (9.3%) | .22 |
| Patients with pathological Intrapulmonary lymph node involvement | 4 (4.1%) | 2 (2.1%) | .407 |
| Previous lung cancer | 9 (9.3%) | 8 (8.3%) | .8 |
| ASA | .741 | ||
| I | 2 (2.1%) | 1 (1.03%) | |
| II | 41 (42.3%) | 35 (36.1%) | |
| III | 52 (53.6%) | 59 (60.8%) | |
| IV | 2 (2.1%) | 2 (2.1%) | |
| Hemithorax | .869 | ||
| Right | 24 (24.7%) | 25 (25.8%) | |
| Left | 73 (75.3%) | 72 (74.2%) | |
| No. of incisions | .22 | ||
| 1 | 8 (8.3%) | 16 (16.5%) | |
| 2 | 66 (68.0%) | 61 (62.8%) | |
| Multiportal (≥3) | 23 (23.7%) | 20 (20.6%) |
IQR, Interquartile range; VLG, VATS lobectomy group; VASG, VATS anatomic segmentectomy group; BMI, body mass index; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; DLCO, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists.
Hilar-mediastinal: N2 stations or 10 station.
After adjusted analysis (Table 4), the only postoperative difference between groups was a significantly lower incidence of prolonged air leak in the VASG (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.89; P = .02). No other differences were found in terms of postoperative complications and perioperative outcomes between groups.
Table 4.
Propensity-matched analysis of results
| VLG (97) | VASG (97) | RR/MD | 95% CI | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Severe complications∗ | 3 (3.1%) | 3 (3.1%) | 1 | 0.21-4.8 | 1 |
| Postoperative mortality | 1 (1.0%) | 2 (2.1%) | 2 | 0.18-21.7 | .56 |
| IIIb | 1 (1.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 | .31 | |
| Iva | 2 (2.1%) | 2 (2.1%) | 1 | 0.14-6.96 | 1 |
| Ivb | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | N/A | ||
| Respiratory complications | 24 (24.7%) | 14 (14.4%) | 0.58 | 0.32-1.06 | .07 |
| Prolonged intubation | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | N/A | ||
| Reintubation | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.0%) | N/A | ||
| Prolonged air leak (>5 d) | 16 (16.5%) | 6 (6.2%) | 0.38 | 0.15-0.92 | .02 |
| Pleural effusion/pneumothorax | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (1.0%) | 1 | 0.06-15.8 | 1 |
| Atelectasis | 2 (2.1)% | 4 (4.1)% | 2 | 0.38-10.7 | .41 |
| Pneumonia | 3 (3.1%) | 3 (3.1%) | 1 | 0.21-4.83 | 1 |
| ADRS | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | N/A | ||
| Bronchopleural fistula | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | N/A | ||
| Empyema | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | N/A | ||
| Chylothorax | 2 (2.1%) | 1 (1.0%) | 0.5 | 0.05-5.42 | .56 |
| Pulmonary thromboembolism | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | N/A | ||
| Other respiratory complications | 2 (2.1%) | 1 (1.0%) | 0.5 | 0.05-5.42 | .56 |
| Reintervention | 3 (3.1%) | 3 (3.1%) | 1 | 0.21-4.83 | 1 |
| Wound infection | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.1)% | N/A | ||
| Cardiovascular complications | 6 (6.2%) | 7 (7.2%) | 1.17 | 0.41-3.35 | .77 |
| Blood transfusion | 2 (2.1%) | 3 (3.1%) | 1.5 | 0.26-8.78 | .65 |
| Other complications | 6 (6.2%) | 6 (6.2%) | 1 | 0.33-2.99 | 1 |
| Perioperative outcomes | |||||
| Surgical time (min) | 191 | 179 | 12 | −6.7 to 30.8 | .2 |
| Basic care | 11 (11.3%) | 4 (4.1%) | |||
| Intermediate care | 33 (34.0%) | 38 (39.2%) | |||
| intensive care unit | 53 (54.6%) | 55 (56.7%) | .16 | ||
| Intraoperative death | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |||
| Postoperative stay | 5.7 | 5.3 | 0.4 | −0.75 to 1.58 | .49 |
| Readmission | 7 (7.2%) | 6 (6.2%) | 0.86 | 0.30-2.45 | .77 |
| Intermediate care or ICU readmission | |||||
VLG, VATS lobectomy group; VASG, VATS anatomic segmentectomy; RR, relative risk; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval; N/A, not applicable; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; ICU, intensive care unit.
Severe complications: death or any complication considered IIIb or superior in the Clavien-Dindo classification.
The 36-month follow-up (24.4; IQR, 20.8-28.3) time curve analysis for overall survival (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.45-1.7; P = .2) (Figure 1), tumor progression–related survival (loco-regional or distant metastasis) (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.11-1.57; P = .2) (Figure 2), and disease-free survival (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.35-1.51; P = .4) (Figure 3) showed no differences between groups.
Figure 1.
Overall survival in the VASG versus VLG. CI, Confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio;
Figure 2.
Relapse-related mortality in the VASG versus VLG. CI, Confidence interval; SHR, subdistribution hazard ratio.
Figure 3.
Disease-free survival in the VASG versus VLG. CI, Confidence interval; SHR, subdistribution hazard ratio.
Discussion
Postoperative results and midterm survival after VATS anatomic segmentectomy have been explored by different authors showing postoperative results similar to those for VATS lobectomy, but studies are mostly retrospective,2,9, 10, 11, 12, 13,18, 19, 20 focusing on patients with limited functional reserve or very small lung lesions, with occasional attempts of patient matching.21,22 Although our study is retrospective, it is characterized by a reasonably large cohort of patients (2250 VATS patients) and the application of propensity score–matching methodology. A significant postoperative finding in the present study is the lower incidence of prolonged air leak in VATS segmentectomies that have been greater in previous studies.9,10 We suspect this is due to greater apposition of the remaining lung parenchyma; however, there was no homogeneous way to construct the intersegmental plane in all centers, so future studies will be necessary to confirm this finding.
In the survival analysis, we did not find differences between groups, which is consistent with previous studies.2,8, 9, 10, 11, 12,16,17 Although there were differences in lymphadenectomy patterns, the definitive pathological lymph node involvement did not show differences between groups. Despite the inherent diversity of stages, histology, and lymphadenectomy technique of a multicentric study, midterm survival results were similar when comparing thoracoscopic anatomic segmentectomy with lobectomy (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3). Midterm survival and recurrence were tested in 3 years of follow-up (24.4; IQR, 20.8-28.3) because the median time from surgical resection of the primary lung cancer to loco-regional recurrent disease or distant recurrence is less than 15 months.23
Not limited to VATS approaches only, there are currently 2 randomized trials being conducted to compare lobectomy versus sublobar resections in terms of survival and disease-free survival: the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (140503)24 and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (0802).25 It is hoped that the future results will provide strong, sufficient evidence to overcome the limitations not only in our study but also in the available literature. However, the issue of adopting the VATS approach for sublobar resections, even in the absence of strong randomized studies, seems to have been overcome by clinical evolution of surgical units toward noninvasive approaches.26
Study Limitations
This study has several limitations. Although the entry of data was made in a prospective manner, the decision to perform each procedure was not randomized and was left up to the individual clinician's judgment. This supposes a risk of selection bias and a lack of control of confounding factors with the need of statistical adjustment techniques. In addition, this is not an intention-to-treat analysis. Moreover, the nature of the multicenter collaboration implies that some units would be more versed in performing more complex or unusual segmentectomies than others. Missing is higher than 10% in the variable tumor location. We acknowledge that accurate information about the location of the tumors, peripheral versus central, might have an effect, depending on the surgeon's experience, on having more prolonged air leaks. In addition, there was no requirement to disclose the method of lung parenchyma division, although is assumed that this was performed by the use of endo-staplers in the majority of cases.
Conclusions
VATS anatomic segmentectomy has similar postoperative results when compared with VATS lobectomy in terms of postoperative morbidity, midterm overall survival, and disease-free survival. As a newly reported finding, VATS segmentectomy decreases the risk of postoperative prolonged air leak compared with VATS lobectomy (Figure 4).
Figure 4.
VATS segmentectomy has similar postoperative and midterm survival compared with lobectomy. Air leak was decreased in the segmentectomy group. CI, Confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; RR, relative risk.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Johnson & Johnson provided funding for the database.
Ethics Committees: The project was approved by the ethics committees of all the participating centers, and informed consent was obtained from the recruited patients to use their clinical data for scientific purposes (PI15/0072, 20/05/2015).
Contributor Information
Julio Sesma, Email: jsesmaromero@gmail.com.
Spanish Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Group:
Raul Embun, Iñigo Royo-Crespo, José Luis Recuero Díaz, Sergio Bolufer, Julio Sesma, Sergi Call, Miguel Congregado, David Gómez-de Antonio, Marcelo F. Jimenez, Nicolas Moreno-Mata, Borja Aguinagalde, Sergio Amor-Alonso, Miguel Jesús Arrarás, Ana Isabel Blanco Orozco, Marc Boada, Alberto Cabañero Sánchez, Isabel Cal Vázquez, Ángel Cilleruelo Ramos, Silvana Crowley Carrasco, Elena Fernández-Martín, Santiago García-Barajas, Maria Dolores García-Jiménez, Jose María García-Prim, Jose Alberto Garcia-Salcedo, Juan José Gelbenzu-Zazpe, Carlos Fernando Giraldo-Ospina, María Teresa Gómez Hernández, Jorge Hernández, Jennifer D. Illana Wolf, Alberto Jauregui Abularach, Unai Jiménez, Iker López Sanz, Néstor J. Martínez-Hernández, Elisabeth Martínez-Téllez, Lucía Milla Collado, Roberto Mongil Poce, Francisco Javier Moradiellos-Díez, Ramón Moreno-Balsalobre, Sergio B. Moreno Merino, Carme Obiols, Florencio Quero-Valenzuela, María Elena Ramírez-Gil, Ricard Ramos-Izquierdo, Eduardo Rivo, Alberto Rodríguez-Fuster, Rafael Rojo-Marcos, David Sanchez-Lorente, Laura Sanchez Moreno, Carlos Simón, Juan Carlos Trujillo-Reyes, and Florentino Hernando Trancho
Supplementary Data
Multiportal VATS approach to perform anatomic resection (lobectomy or segmentectomy). Utility incision is placed in the fifth intercostal space, and additional ports are placed inferior and posteriorly. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2736(22)00021-3/fulltext.
Uniportal VATS approach through the fifth intercostal space to perform anatomic resection (lobectomy or segmentectomy). Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2736(22)00021-3/fulltext.
Appendix E1
Multicentric Spanish Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Group Database Members
Raul Embun,a Iñigo Royo-Crespo,a José Luis Recuero Díaz,a Sergio Bolufer,b Julio Sesma,b Sergi Call,c Miguel Congregado,d David Gómez-de Antonio,e Marcelo F. Jimenez,f Nicolas Moreno-Mata,g Borja Aguinagalde,h Sergio Amor-Alonso,i Miguel Jesús Arrarás,j Ana Isabel Blanco Orozco,k Marc Boada,l Alberto Cabañero Sánchez,g Isabel Cal Vázquez,m Ángel Cilleruelo Ramos,n Silvana Crowley Carrasco,e Elena Fernández-Martín,ñ Santiago García-Barajas,o Maria Dolores García-Jiménez,p Jose María García-Prim,q Jose Alberto Garcia-Salcedo,r Juan José Gelbenzu-Zazpe,s Carlos Fernando Giraldo-Ospina,t María Teresa Gómez Hernández,f Jorge Hernández,u Jennifer D. Illana Wolf,v Alberto Jauregui Abularach,w Unai Jiménez,x Iker López Sanz,h Néstor J. Martínez-Hernández,y Elisabeth Martínez-Téllez,z Lucía Milla Collado,aa Roberto Mongil Poce,t Francisco Javier Moradiellos-Díez,i Ramón Moreno-Balsalobre,m Sergio B. Moreno Merinod, Carme Obiols,c Florencio Quero-Valenzuela,ab María Elena Ramírez-Gil,s Ricard Ramos-Izquierdo,ac Eduardo Rivo,q Alberto Rodríguez-Fuster,ad,ae Rafael Rojo-Marcos,x David Sanchez-Lorente,l Laura Sanchez Moreno,af Carlos Simón,ag Juan Carlos Trujillo-Reyes,z Florentino Hernando Tranchoñ
aServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet y Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, IIS Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain
bServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain
cServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitari Mútua Terrasa, Universidad de Barcelona, Terrasa, Barcelona, Spain
dServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain
eServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain
fServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, IBSAL, Salamanca, Spain
gServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
hServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario de Donostia, San Sebastián-Donostia, Spain
iServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Quironsalud Madrid, Madrid, Spain
jServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
kServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain
lServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Instituto Respiratorio, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
mServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
nServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Valladolid, Spain
ñServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
oServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario de Badajoz, Badajoz, Spain
pServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain
qServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
rServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
sServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
tServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Regional Universitario, Málaga, Spain
uServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Sagrat Cor, Barcelona, Spain
vServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain
wServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
xServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Bilbao, Spain
yServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario La Ribera, Alcira, Valencia, Spain
zServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Santa Creu y Sant Pau, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
aaServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Lleida, Spain
abServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
acServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
adServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
aeIMIM (Instituto de Investigación Médica Hospital del Mar), Barcelona, Spain
afServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santader, Spain
agServicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
References
- 1.Altorki N.K., Kamel M.K., Narula N., Ghaly G., Nasar A., Rahouma M., et al. Anatomical segmentectomy and wedge resections are associated with comparable outcomes for patients with small cT1N0 non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:1984–1992. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.06.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Dziedzic R., Zurek W., Marjanski T., Rudzinski P., Orlowski T.M., Sawicka W., et al. Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: long-term results of lobectomy versus sublobar resection from the polish national lung cancer registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:363–369. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Charloux A., Quoix E. Lung segmentectomy: does it offer a real functional benefit over lobectomy? Eur Respir Rev. 2017;26:146. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0079-2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ost D.E., Jim Yeung S.C., Tanoue L.T., Gould M.K. Clinical and organizational factors in the initial evaluation of patients with lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(Suppl 5):s121–s141. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-2352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gossot D., Lutz J., Grogoroiu M., Brian E., Seguin-Givelet A. Thoracoscopic anatomic segmentectomies for lung cancer: technical aspects. J Vis Surg. 2016;2:171. doi: 10.21037/jovs.2016.10.04. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Nagashima T., Shimizu K., Ohtaki Y., Obayashi K., Kakegawa S., Nakazawa S., et al. An analysis of variations in the bronchovascular pattern of the right-upper lobe using three-dimensional CT angiography and bronchography. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;63:354–360. doi: 10.1007/s11748-015-0531-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nagashima T., Shimizu K., Ohtaki Y., Obayashi K., Nakazawa S., Mogi A., et al. An analysis of variations in the bronchovascular pattern of the right-middle and lower lobes of the lung using three-dimensional CT angiography and bronchography. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;65:343–349. doi: 10.1007/s11748-017-0754-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Traibi A., Grigoroiu M., Boulitrop C., Urena A., Masuet-Aumatell C., Brian E., et al. Predictive factors for complications in anatomical pulmonary segmentectomies. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17:838–844. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Deng B., Cassivi S.D., de Andrade M., Nichols F.C., Trastek V.F., Wang Y., et al. Clinical outcomes and changes in lung function after segmentectomy versus lobectomy for lung cancer cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:1186. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.03.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Song C.Y., Sakai T., Kimura D., Tsushima T., Fukuda I. Comparison of perioperative and oncological outcomes between video-assisted segmentectomy and lobectomy for patients with clinical stage IA non-small cell lung cancer: a propensity score matching study. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10:4891. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.07.133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hwang Y., Kang C.H., Kim H.S., Jeon J.H., Park I.K., Kim Y.T. Comparison of thoracoscopic segmentectomy and thoracoscopic lobectomy on the patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a propensity score matching study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;48:273. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Zhong C., Fang W., Mao T., Yao F., Chen W., Hu D. Comparison of thoracoscopic segmentectomy and thoracoscopic lobectomy for small-sized stage IA lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94:362. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.04.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bédat B., Abdelnour-Berchtold E., Perneger T., Licker M.J., Stefani A., Krull M., et al. Comparison of postoperative complications between segmentectomy and lobectomy by video-assisted thoracic surgery: a multicenter study. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;14:189. doi: 10.1186/s13019-019-1021-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Embun R., Royo-Crespo I., Recuero Díaz J.L., Bolufer S., Call S., Congregado M., et al. Spanish Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Group: method, auditing, and initial results from a national prospective cohort of patients receiving anatomical lung resections. Arch Bronconeumol. 2020;56:718–724. doi: 10.1016/j.arbr.2020.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Didier D., De Leyn P., Van Schil P., Porta R.R., Waller D., Passlick P., et al. ESTS guidelines for intraoperative lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;30:787–792. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Fernandez F.G., Falcoz P.E., Kozower B.D., Salati M., Wright C.D., Brunelli A. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery databases: joint standardization of variable definitions and terminology. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:368–376. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Zeng W., Zhang W., Zhang J., You G., Mao Y., Xu J., et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18:44. doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-01814-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Winckelmans T., Decaluwé H., De Leyn P., Van Raemdonck D. Segmentectomy or lobectomy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;57:1051–1060. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Shapiro M., Weiser T.S., Wisnivesky J.P., Chin C., Arustamyan M., Swanson S.J. Thoracoscopic segmentectomy compares favorably with thoracoscopic lobectomy for patients with small stage I lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:1388–1393. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Martin-Ucar A.E., Nakas A., Pilling J.E., West K.J., Waller D.A. A case-matched study of anatomical segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I lung cancer in high-risk patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27:675–679. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Date H., Andou A., Shimizu N. The value of limited resection for 'clinical' stage I peripheral non-small cell lung cancer in poor-risk patients: comparison of limited resection and lobectomy by a computer-assisted matched study. Tumori. 1994;80:422–426. doi: 10.1177/030089169408000603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Boyd J.A., Hubbs J.L., Kim D.W., Hollis D., Marks L.B., Kelsey C.R. Timing of local and distant failure in resected lung cancer: implications for reported rates of local failure. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:211–214. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181c20080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Altorki N.K., Wang X., Wigle D., Gu L., Darling G., Ashrafi A.S., et al. Perioperative mortality and morbidity after lobar versus sublobar resection for early stage lung cancer: a post-hoc analysis of an international randomized phase III trial (CALGB/Alliance 140503) Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6:914–924. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30411-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Suzuki K., Saji H., Aokage K., Watanabe S.I., Okada M., Mizusawa J., et al. Comparison of pulmonary segmentectomy and lobectomy: safety results of a randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;158:895–907. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.03.090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Surendrakumar V., Martin-Ucar A.E., Edwards J.G., Rao J., Socci L. Evaluation of surgical approaches to anatomical segmentectomies: the transition to minimal invasive surgery improves hospital outcomes. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:3896–3902. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.09.91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Multiportal VATS approach to perform anatomic resection (lobectomy or segmentectomy). Utility incision is placed in the fifth intercostal space, and additional ports are placed inferior and posteriorly. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2736(22)00021-3/fulltext.
Uniportal VATS approach through the fifth intercostal space to perform anatomic resection (lobectomy or segmentectomy). Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2736(22)00021-3/fulltext.