The surgical outcome of standard lobectomy versus sleeve lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: propensity score matching.

0 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1093/icvts/ivae133
Melike Ülker, Melek Ağkoç, Fahmin Amirov, Salih Duman, Berker Özkan, Mustafa Erelel, Murat Kara, Alper Toker
{"title":"The surgical outcome of standard lobectomy versus sleeve lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: propensity score matching.","authors":"Melike Ülker, Melek Ağkoç, Fahmin Amirov, Salih Duman, Berker Özkan, Mustafa Erelel, Murat Kara, Alper Toker","doi":"10.1093/icvts/ivae133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The goal of this study was to compare the patients who underwent standard or sleeve lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer in terms of postoperative outcomes, prognostic factors and overall survival.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January 2002 and January 2020, the patients with squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma who underwent standard lobectomy or sleeve lobectomy by thoracotomy in our clinic were analysed retrospectively. Standard and sleeve groups were compared after propensity score matching in terms of age, comorbidity, T status, N status and pathological stage. Primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality; the secondary outcome was overall survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 476 patients, and sleeve lobectomy was performed in 196 (41.1%) patients. Multivariable analysis revealed that age over 61 years (P = 0.003 and P = 0.005, respectively), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) below 84% (P = 0.013 and P = 0.205, respectively) and the presence of perineural invasion (P = 0.052 and P = 0.001, respectively) were poor prognostic factors in the standard lobectomy and the sleeve groups. The propensity matching analysis included 276 patients (138 sleeve lobectomy and 138 standard lobectomy). Complications occurred in 96 (69.6%) and 92 (66.7%) patients in the standard and sleeve groups, respectively (P = 0.605). Three (2.2%) patients in the standard group and 5 (3.6%) patients in the sleeve group died within 90 days postoperatively (P = 0.723).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bronchial sleeve lobectomy is a safe procedure that can be applied in oncologically suitable cases without causing higher mortality than a standard lobectomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":73406,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11298412/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivae133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare the patients who underwent standard or sleeve lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer in terms of postoperative outcomes, prognostic factors and overall survival.

Methods: Between January 2002 and January 2020, the patients with squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma who underwent standard lobectomy or sleeve lobectomy by thoracotomy in our clinic were analysed retrospectively. Standard and sleeve groups were compared after propensity score matching in terms of age, comorbidity, T status, N status and pathological stage. Primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality; the secondary outcome was overall survival.

Results: The study included 476 patients, and sleeve lobectomy was performed in 196 (41.1%) patients. Multivariable analysis revealed that age over 61 years (P = 0.003 and P = 0.005, respectively), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) below 84% (P = 0.013 and P = 0.205, respectively) and the presence of perineural invasion (P = 0.052 and P = 0.001, respectively) were poor prognostic factors in the standard lobectomy and the sleeve groups. The propensity matching analysis included 276 patients (138 sleeve lobectomy and 138 standard lobectomy). Complications occurred in 96 (69.6%) and 92 (66.7%) patients in the standard and sleeve groups, respectively (P = 0.605). Three (2.2%) patients in the standard group and 5 (3.6%) patients in the sleeve group died within 90 days postoperatively (P = 0.723).

Conclusions: Bronchial sleeve lobectomy is a safe procedure that can be applied in oncologically suitable cases without causing higher mortality than a standard lobectomy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非小细胞肺癌患者标准肺叶切除术与袖式肺叶切除术的手术效果:倾向评分匹配
研究目的本研究旨在比较接受标准肺叶切除术或袖状肺叶切除术的非小细胞肺癌患者的术后效果、预后因素和总生存期:方法:回顾性分析2002年1月至2020年1月期间在我院接受标准肺叶切除术或袖状肺叶切除术的鳞癌或腺癌患者。在对年龄、合并症、T 状态、N 状态和病理分期进行倾向评分匹配后,比较了标准组和袖状切除组。主要结果是发病率和死亡率,次要结果是总生存率:研究共纳入 476 例患者,196 例(41.1%)患者接受了袖状肺叶切除术。多变量分析显示,年龄超过61岁(分别为p = 0.003和p = 0.005)、第一秒用力呼气容积低于84%(分别为p = 0.013和p = 0.205)和存在神经周围侵犯(分别为p = 0.052和p = 0.001)是标准肺叶切除术组和袖状切除术组的不良预后因素。倾向匹配分析包括276例患者(138例袖状肺叶切除术和138例标准肺叶切除术)。标准组和袖状切除组分别有96例(69.6%)和92例(66.7%)患者出现并发症(P = 0.605)。术后90天内,标准组有3名(2.2%)患者死亡,袖带组有5名(3.6%)患者死亡(P = 0.723):支气管袖式肺叶切除术是一种安全的手术,适用于肿瘤学上合适的病例,不会导致比标准肺叶切除术更高的死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Return to work after parenting in thoracic surgery: a call to action. Value of observational studies in the outcome evaluation of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement. Prosthesis selection for reconstruction of superior vena cava: comparison of midterm patency rates. Prophylactic ablation during cardiac surgery in patients without atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. A case of superior trunk brachial plexus injury after right mini-thoracotomy mitral valve repair.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1