A prospective study examining the impact of uniportal video‐assisted thoracic surgery on the short‐term quality of life in patients with lung cancer

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of uniportal and three‐portal VATS in lung cancer patients on the postoperative short‐term quality of life (QOL). Methods A single‐center, prospective, nonrandomized study was performed on patients who underwent uniportal or three‐portal video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy and systemic mediastinal lymph node dissection. QOL was measured before surgery at baseline and at one, two, four, and eight weeks after the operation. The measured data of normal distribution were indicated by the mean ± standard deviation, the independent sample t‐test was used among the groups, and the χ2 test was used to compare the counting. Non‐normal distribution of the measurement data was carried out using the Mann‐Whitney test. Results Preoperative functional areas, symptom areas and overall health scores were similar in the two groups. The physical, role, emotional and social functions and overall health status of the uniportal group were significantly higher than those of the three‐portal group in postoperative time. The score of symptom field was higher in one week after operation, the score of two, four and eight weeks decreased gradually, but it was still above the preoperative level, and the fatigue and pain of the uniportal group were significantly lower than that of the three‐portal group. Conclusion The advantages of uniportal VATS include a shorter hospital stay, more rapid recovery and superior cosmetic results compared to three‐portal VATS. Additionally, uniportal VATS is superior to three‐portal thoracoscopic surgery in terms of the immediate postoperative short‐term QOL.

Uniportal Versus Multiportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer: An Updated Meta-analysis

“…The two reviewers reached a “substantial” level of agreement regarding the studies that were finally included (kappa = 0.787; 95% CI 0.659, 0.914). The study design was randomized controlled in two studies [ 24 , 29 ], prospective in three studies [ 22 , 23 , 28 ], and retrospective in fifteen studies [ 11 – 21 , 25 – 27 , 30 ]. The included studies were conducted in Sweden [ 11 ], Canada [ 12 , 13 ], South Korea [ 14 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 26 ], China [ 15 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 28 , 30 ], Japan [ 18 ], UK [ 22 ], Spain [ 24 ], Italy [ 27 ], and Pakistan [ 29 ] and were published between 2014 and 2020.…”

Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopy surgery in lung cancer: largest experience

“…A number of publications have focused on this technique, but they are mainly case reports and small series. 6–14 Ismail and colleagues, 8 Duan and colleagues, 10 and Erşen and colleagues 11 discussed their experience of UVATS for lobar and sublobar resections for lung cancer and found it to be noninferior to conventional multiport VATS in terms of surgical outcomes, and better in terms of postoperative recovery and hospital stay. However, a multicentric randomized trial concluded that sublobar resection is not a standard of care for the management of lung cancer, and it was associated with increased locoregional recurrence rates without any significant improvement in perioperative morbidity and mortality, recommending that sublobar resection be performed only in patients with significantly reduced pulmonary reserve.…”

Comparison of single- and triple-port VATS for lung cancer: A meta-analysis

“…As illustrated in Figure 1 , our initial search identified 5,154 potentially references from four databases, from which 5,084 were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts. Ultimately, 13 studies were eligible for inclusion [ 13 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. This selection consisted of 3 articles designed as RCTs [ 13 , 25 , 27 ] and 10 articles designed as cohort studies [ 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 28 ] (with 2 propensity-matched cohort studies [ 18 , 23 ]), with approximately 2,278 participants.…”

“…Ultimately, 13 studies were eligible for inclusion [ 13 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. This selection consisted of 3 articles designed as RCTs [ 13 , 25 , 27 ] and 10 articles designed as cohort studies [ 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 28 ] (with 2 propensity-matched cohort studies [ 18 , 23 ]), with approximately 2,278 participants. Among the included studies, seven published in Chinese [ 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ] and six in English [ 13 , 14 , 18 , 20 , 23 , 28 ].…”