Comparative study of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic two-port lobectomy

Peng Jiao, Qing-Jun Wu, Yao-Guang Sun, Chao Ma, Wen-Xin Tian, Han-Bo Yu, Hong-Feng Tong, Peng Jiao, Qing-Jun Wu, Yao-Guang Sun, Chao Ma, Wen-Xin Tian, Han-Bo Yu, Hong-Feng Tong

Abstract

Background: The advantages and disadvantages of three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) two-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy and systematic dissection of mediastinal lymph nodes for lung cancer were investigated.

Methods: Between December 2013 and July 2015 at Beijing Hospital, 191 patients underwent lobectomy and systematic dissection of mediastinal lymph nodes for lung cancer. After applying the study criteria, a total of 165 patients were included and allocated to 3D (n = 76) and 2D (n = 89) groups. Variables of the study design, including duration of surgery, volume of intraoperative bleeding, numbers and groups of lymph nodes dissected, drainage volume after surgery, duration of drainage tube insertion, hospitalization time after surgery, hospitalization costs, and complications, were recorded and analyzed. Intergroup differences for all data were compared and statistically analyzed.

Results: No statistical difference was found between the two groups with respect to duration of surgery, volume of intraoperative bleeding, drainage volume after surgery, duration of drainage tube insertion, hospitalization time after surgery, hospitalization costs, and complications ( P > 0.05). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the numbers and groups of all lymph nodes or N 2 lymph nodes resected ( P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection can be undertaken with two ports using a 3D thoracoscope, and presents similar results to the use of a traditional 2D thoracoscope, at no greater hospitalization cost but with better operational perception and sensitivity during surgery. Two-port lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection using a 3D thoracoscope is a safe and effective surgical process for lung cancer treatment.

Keywords: 2D; 3D; lobectomy; lung cancer; two-port; video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

© 2016 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

References

    1. Scott WJ, Howington J, Feigenberg S, Movsas B, Pisters K, American College of Chest Physicians . Treatment of non‐small cell lung cancer stage I and II: ACCP evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest 2007; 132 (3 Suppl): 234s–42s.
    1. Cheng D, Downey RJ, Kernstine K et al. Video‐assisted thoracic surgery in lung cancer resection: A meta‐analysis and systematic review of controlled trials. Innovations (Phila) 2007; 2: 261–92.
    1. Whitson BA, Andrade RS, Boettcher A et al. Video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery is more favorable than thoracotomy for resection of clinical stage I non‐small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 83: 1965–70.
    1. Liang C, Wen H, Guo Y et al. Severe intraoperative complications during VATS lobectomy compared with thoracotomy lobectomy for early stage non‐small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 2013; 5: 513–7.
    1. Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, Yan TD. 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. Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A. 3D HD versus 2D HD: Surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1454–60.
    1. Shah J, Buckley D, Frisby J, Darzi A. Depth cue reliance in surgeons and medical students. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 1472–4.
    1. Mather G, Smith DR. Depth cue integration: Stereopsis and image blur. Vision Res 2000; 40: 3501–6.
    1. Patel HRH, Ribal MJ, Arya M, Nauth‐Misir R, Joseph JV. Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three‐dimensional visualization? A validated assessment. Urology 2007; 70: 47–9.
    1. Peitgen K, Walz MV, Walz MV, Holtmann G, Eigler FW. A prospective randomized experimental evaluation of three‐dimensional imaging in laparoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 262–7.
    1. Bhayani SB, Andriole GL. Three‐dimensional (3D) vision: Does it improve laparoscopic skills? An assessment of a 3D head‐mounted visualization system. Rev Urol 2005; 7: 211–4.
    1. Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG et al. 2D versus 3D visualization: Impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012; 22: 865–70.
    1. Veronesi G. Robotic thoracic surgery: Technical considerations and learning curve for pulmonary resection. Thorac Surg Clin 2014; 24: 135–41.
    1. Hagiwara M, Shimada Y, Kato Y et al. High‐quality 3‐dimensional image simulation for pulmonary lobectomy and segmentectomy: results of preoperative assessment of pulmonary vessels and short‐term surgical outcomes in consecutive patients undergoing video‐assisted thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 46: e120–6.
    1. Nakamura H. [Lobectomy for lung cancer using the Da Vinci surgical system.] Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi 2014; 115: 147–50. (In Japanese.)

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다