A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: does video-assisted thoracic surgery provide a safe alternative to conventional techniques in patients with limited pulmonary function who are otherwise suitable for lung resection? Altogether, more than 280 papers were found using the reported search, of which 7 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. One of the largest studies reviewed was a retrospective review of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. The authors compared 4531 patients who underwent lobectomy by video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) with 8431 patients who had thoracotomy. In patients with a predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppoFEV1%) of <60, it was demonstrated that thoracotomy patients have markedly increased pulmonary complications when compared with VATS patients (P = 0.023). Another study compared perioperative outcomes in patients with a ppoFEV1% of <40% who underwent thoracoscopic resection with similar patients who underwent open resection. Patients undergoing thoracoscopic resection as opposed to open thoracotomy had a lower incidence of pneumonia (4.3 vs 21.7%, P < 0.05), a shorter intensive care stay (2 vs 4 days, P = 0.05) and a shorter hospital stay (7 vs 10 days, P = 0.058). A similar study compared recurrence and survival in patients with a ppoFEV1% of <40% who underwent resection by VATS or anatomical segmentectomy (study group) with open resection (control group). Relative to the control group, patients in the study group had a shorter length of hospital stay (8 vs 12 days, P = 0.054) and an improved 5-year survival (42 vs 18%, P = 0.02). Analysis suggested that VATS lobectomy was the principal driver of survival benefit in the study group. We conclude that patients with limited pulmonary function have better outcomes when surgery is performed via VATS compared with traditional open techniques. The literature also suggests that patients in whom pulmonary function is poor have similar perioperative outcomes to those with normal function when a VATS approach to resection is adopted.

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'In patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer, is video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy a suitable alternative to thoracotomy and segmentectomy in terms of morbidity and equivalence of resection?' Altogether 232 papers were found as a result of the reported search, of which 7 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Only one study compared the survival rates of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and open surgery and found no significant difference in overall (P = 0.605) and disease-free (P = 0.996) survival between these groups. The mean length of hospital stay was reported as shorter following VATS when compared with open surgery in all of the studies looking at this outcome. The greatest difference in length of hospital stay reported was 4.8 days (VATS 3.5 days and open 8.3 days). The duration of chest tube placement was also universally reported as shorter in patients having VATS procedures when compared with open procedures. Two studies compared the number of lymph nodes that could be sampled when completing this operation by VATS using an open approach and neither found there to be a significant difference between these numbers. Using the evidence collected, we conclude that anatomical segmentectomy performed by VATS is a safe and effective alternative to conventional techniques in the surgical management of non-small-cell lung cancer. We are aware that the current evidence is limited and existing studies all examine small numbers of patients. Unfortunately, at present there is no blinded randomized control trial comparing these two surgical methods. There is also no study comparing the utility of each method for differing anatomical locations of segments. This should be kept in mind when interpreting the results of the studies presented.

No abstract

No abstract