Uniportal versus multiportal thoracoscopic lobectomy: Ergonomic evaluation and perioperative outcomes from a randomized and controlled trial

Jie Yao, Zhibo Chang, Lin Zhu, Junqiang Fan, Jie Yao, Zhibo Chang, Lin Zhu, Junqiang Fan

Abstract

Background: To compare perioperative outcomes and surgeon physical and mental stress when performing lobectomy through uniportal and multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) on patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: Patients aged 41 to 73 years with resectable NSCLC were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either uniportal VATS (UVATS) or multiportal VATS (MVATS) lobectomy and lymphadenectomy between December 2015 and October 2016. Overall, we randomly assigned 35 patients to the UVATS and 34 to the MVATS group. Patients and the investigators undertaking interventions, assessing short-term outcomes, performing ergonomic evaluations, and analyzing data were not masked to group assignment.

Results: Patient demographics of the 2 groups were comparable. The ergonomic evaluation considered eye blink rate and the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), better results were observed in UVATS than in MVATS. The operative time, number of lymph nodes harvested, chest tube duration, length of hospital stay, and lung function were not significantly different between the groups. Compared with MVATS lobectomy, UVATS lobectomy was associated with less intraoperative blood loss and less volume of total drainage in the 24 hours. No conversion, no reoperation, and no in-hospital mortality occurred in either group.

Conclusions: UVATS lobectomy is a safe and programmable technique with some better perioperative outcomes and ergonomic results than MVATS. Further studies based on large numbers of patients and with long-term follow-up are required to confirm its benefits towards patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT02462356. Registered May 27, 2015.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the study. VATS = video-assissted thoracic surgery.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A and B: The designed surgical instruments with double articulate and long curve suction for uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. C: A 30°, 10-mm high definition camera thoracoscope was placed at the posterior part of the incision during most of operative time (a transfusion tube binds the thoracoscope fixed by a clamp for relieving the tiredness), and other instruments were placed at the anterior side. D: A 3.5 cm incision was made at the fifth intercostal space that between the anterior axillary line and posterior axillary line, and a 24F chest tube was placed at posterior part of incision.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The surgeon with harmonic in right hand and suction in left hand in the mediastinal lymph nodes dissection period. A: 2R and 4R lymph nodes dissection. B: 7R lymph nodes dissection. C: 7L lymph nodes dissection. D: 4L lymph nodes dissection.

References

    1. Naidoo R, Windsor MN, Goldstraw P. Surgery in 2013 and beyond. J Thorac Dis 2013;5: suppl: S593–606.
    1. Onaitis MW, Petersen RP, Balderson SS, et al. Thoracoscopic lobectomy is a safe and versatile procedure: experience with 500 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 2006;244:420–5.
    1. Scott WJ, Allen MS, Darling G, et al. Video-assisted thoracic surgery versus open lobectomy for lung cancer: a secondary analysis of data from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0030 randomized clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;139:976–81. discussion 981-3.
    1. Higuchi M, Yaginuma H, Yonechi A, et al. Long-term outcomes after video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) lobectomy versus lobectomy via open thoracotomy for clinical stage IA non-small cell lung cancer. J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;9:88.
    1. 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.
    1. Bertolaccini L, Viti A, Terzi A. Ergon-trial: ergonomic evaluation of single-port access versus three-port access video-assisted thoracic surgery. Surg Endosc 2015;29:2934–40.
    1. Zheng B, Cassera MA, Martinec DV, et al. Measuring mental workload during the performance of advanced laparoscopic tasks. Surg Endosc 2010;24:45–50.
    1. Fan JQ, Yao J, Chang ZB, et al. Left upper lobectomy and systematic lymph nodes dissection in enlarged pulmonary hilar lymph nodes in primary lung cancer patient by uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery. J Thorac Dis 2016;8:2259–63.
    1. Fan J, Yao J, Wang Q, et al. Safety and feasibility of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 2016;8:3543–50.
    1. Fan JQ, Yao J, Chang ZB, et al. Left lower sleeve lobectomy and systematic lymph node dissection by complete video-assisted thoracic surgery. J Thorac Dis 2014;6:1826–30.
    1. Shen Y, Feng M, Tan L, et al. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in prone versus decubitus position: ergonomic evaluation from a randomized and controlled study. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;98:1072–8.
    1. Rocco G, Martin-Ucar A, Passera E. Uniportal VATS wedge pulmonary resections. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:726–8.
    1. Gonzalez-Rivas D, de la Torre M, Fernandez R, et al. Single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic left upper lobectomy. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011;13:539–41.
    1. Gonzalez-Rivas D, Mendez L, Delgado M, et al. Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomic segmentectomy. J Thorac Dis 2013;5: suppl: S226–33.
    1. Gonzalez-Rivas D, Delgado M, Fieira E, et al. Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic pneumonectomy. J Thorac Dis 2013;5: suppl: S246–52.
    1. Gonzalez-Rivas D, Delgado M, Fieira E, et al. Left lower sleeve lobectomy by uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic approach. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2014;18:237–9.
    1. Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, et al. A meta-analysis of unmatched and matched patients comparing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy and conventional open lobectomy. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2012;1:16–23.
    1. Wang BY, Liu CY, Hsu PK, et al. Single-incision versus multiple-incision thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy: a propensity-matched analysis. Ann Surg 2015;261:793–9.
    1. Shen Y, Wang H, Feng M, et al. Single- versus multiple-port thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer: a propensity-matched study dagger. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016;49: suppl: i48–53.
    1. Zheng B, Jiang X, Tien G, et al. Workload assessment of surgeons: correlation between NASA TLX and blinks. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2746–50.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa