Search

Background: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves can improve outcomes in appropriately selected patients with emphysema. However, no direct comparison data exist to inform clinical decision making in people who appear suitable for both procedures. Our aim was to investigate whether LVRS produces superior health outcomes when compared with BLVR at 12 months., Methods: This multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group trial randomised patients from five UK hospitals, who were suitable for a targeted lung volume reduction procedure, to either LVRS or BLVR and compared outcomes at 1 year using the i-BODE score. This composite disease severity measure includes body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea and exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test). The researchers responsible for collecting outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. All outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population., Results: 88 participants (48% female, mean±sd age 64.6±7.7 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted 31.0±7.9%) were recruited at five specialist centres across the UK and randomised to either LVRS (n=41) or BLVR (n=47). At 12 months follow-up, the complete i-BODE was available in 49 participants (21 LVRS/28 BLVR). Neither improvement in the i-BODE score (LVRS -1.10±1.44 versus BLVR -0.82±1.61; p=0.54) nor in its individual components differed between groups. Both treatments produced similar improvements in gas trapping (residual volume percent predicted: LVRS -36.1% (95% CI -54.6- -10%) versus BLVR -30.1% (95% CI -53.7- -9%); p=0.81). There was one death in each treatment arm., Conclusion: Our findings do not support the hypothesis that LVRS is a substantially superior treatment to BLVR in individuals who are suitable for both treatments., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: D. Waller reports lecture honoraria from PulmonX Ltd, outside the submitted work. N.J. Greening reports grants from GSK, consulting fees from Genentech, lecture honoraria from AstraZeneca and Chiesi, travel support from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. P.L. Shah reports lecture honoraria from PulmonX Ltd, outside the submitted work. R. Bilancia reports lecture honoraria and travel support from Intuitive, outside the submitted work. R. Lawson is a Member of British Thoracic Society COPD Specialist Advisory group, a Member of South Yorkshire Clinical Senate, and a Member of South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw Respiratory Clinical Network, outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Objectives: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been demonstrated to provide symptomatic relief and improve lung function in patients with end-stage emphysema. The National Emphysema Treatment Trial specifically noted functional benefits in patients with predominantly upper lobe emphysema and demonstrated improvement in quality-of-life parameters, in patients with non-upper lobe emphysema and a low-baseline exercise capacity. We aimed to investigate whether physiological and health status benefits correlated with lower lobe LVRS., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed from our prospectively collected patient database. A total of 36 patients with severe, non-upper lobe predominant emphysema underwent lower lobe LVRS in our institution, over a 20-year period. The assessments consisted of measurements of body mass index, pulmonary function tests and health-related quality of life using the Short Form 36-item questionnaires., Results: Forced expiratory volume in 1 s was seen to improve 3 months [coefficient of time = 1.55 (0.88, 2.21); P < 0.0001] after the procedure, maintained until the first 6 months [0.48 (0.12, 0.85); P = 0.010], decline over the second half of the first year and gradually return to preoperative levels after 2 years, while residual volume to total lung capacity (%) ratio was seen to follow a similar pattern with significant decrease from baseline after 3 months [coefficient of time = -1.76 (-2.75, -0.76); P = 0.001] and 6 months [-1.05 (-1.51, -0.59); P < 0.0001]. Quality-of-life improvements were mainly noted in physical components., Conclusions: Contrary to a widely held misconception following the National Emphysema Treatment Trial that lower lobe lung volume reduction does not offer significant benefits to patients with non-upper lobe predominant emphysema, we feel justified in offering lower lobe LVRS in these patients when they meet the same selection criteria as upper lobe LVRS., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Patients with resectable lung cancer and concomitant emphysema can fall outside the accepted guidelines for surgery. Lung volume reduction can improve their lung function but involves resecting an emphysematous lobe containing the tumour. Volume reduction can also be achieved by endobronchial one-way valve insertion, causing lobar collapse, but intact fissures are required. A 'hybrid bilobectomy' was performed on a 77-year-old ex-smoker with suspected T2aN0M0 bronchogenic carcinoma and severe pulmonary emphysema. The procedure consisted of endobronchial right lower lobe volume reduction and video-assisted middle lobectomy with stapled completion of the oblique fissure. Complete collapse of the right lower lobe was confirmed intraoperatively and on follow-up chest films. The recovery period was complicated by a prolonged air leak. We believe that concomitant endobronchial volume reduction of an ipsilateral lobe can facilitate video-assisted lobectomy in high-risk patients with severe emphysema. The success of endobronchial valves to achieve a hybrid bilobectomy is increased by stapled completion of fissure to prevent collateral ventilation., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Macroscopic complete resection with lung preservation is the objective of radical management of pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Total removal of visceral and parietal pleura (pleurectomy/decortication) almost invariably proceeds to an extended pleurectomy/decortication (EPD) to ensure macroscopic complete resection. We suspected this may not always be necessary., Methods: We reviewed 314 patients, 86.0% male, median age 62 years (range 14-81 years) undergoing radical surgery for MPM from 1999 to 2014, by either EPD or extrapleural pneumonectomy. The extent of diaphragmatic muscle involvement was recorded from postoperative pathology. Patients were divided into three groups: no involvement, non-transmural, transmural diaphragmatic invasion., Results: A total of 213 (68%) patients underwent EPD, 237 (75.5%) had epithelioid disease and 57.6% were node positive. There was no difference between the three groups in terms of age, cell type, laterality, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and operation. There was a higher degree of diaphragm involvement in females (P = 0.01) and in patients with positive lymph nodes (P = 0.01). No evidence of diaphragmatic involvement was found following pathological assessment of the resection specimen in 119 patients (37.9%). The incidence of abdominal disease progression was 23.9%. There was no correlation with degree of diaphragmatic invasion (ρ = 0.01 P = 0.88). Overall survival of those with abdominal progression was similar to those with progression elsewhere: 14.5 vs 13.0 months (P = 0.79), and with those with no progression (16.7 months, P = 0.189). There was no difference in survival when stratified by diaphragmatic involvement (P = 0.44)., Conclusions: In our cohort, there was no evidence of diaphragmatic invasion in over 30% of patients, and we have also failed to find evidence that peritoneal disease progression affects overall survival following radical management. It may therefore theoretically be unnecessary to resect the diaphragm in all cases, and a pleurectomy-decortication could suffice. However, there is an unknown risk of R2 resection which would prejudice survival, and as such we would advocate resecting the diaphragm in all cases to avoid an R2 resection., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)