Comparison of stapler and electrocautery for division of the intersegmental plane in lung segmentectomy.

Segmentectomy electrocautery intersegmental plane stapler

Journal

Journal of thoracic disease
ISSN: 2072-1439
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Dis
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101533916

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Historique:
received: 23 08 2021
accepted: 14 10 2021
entrez: 7 1 2022
pubmed: 8 1 2022
medline: 8 1 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We retrospectively compared the use of a stapler and electrocautery for division of the intersegmental plane during pulmonary segmentectomy. We enrolled 156 patients who underwent pulmonary segmentectomy in our department between March 2006 and August 2020. The patients were divided into electrocautery (n=62) and stapler (n=94) groups based on the device used to divide the intersegmental plane. Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and ratios of actual (calculated using software) to predicted (calculated by counting the resected segments) lung volumes were compared between the two groups. Additionally, we used multivariate analysis to identify the factors that contributed to the incidence of postoperative air leakage after cut-off value was set by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Moreover, a subset analysis was performed based on the type of segmentectomy (common or uncommon). Common segmentectomies included resection of the basilar or superior segment of the lower lobe, or lingular or upper division of the left upper lobe; all other segmentectomies were classified as uncommon. Compared to the electrocautery group, the stapler group had shorter operative times (P=0.0027), duration of postoperative drainage (P=0.00037), and duration of postoperative hospitalization (P=0.0021). Moreover, incidence of postoperative ≥3 days drainage was significantly reduced in the stapler group (P=0.003). There were no significant differences between the stapler and electrocautery groups in the actual:predicted lung volumes at 6 months (1.01 and 1.04, respectively; P=0.28) or 12 months (1.06 and 1.07, respectively; P=0.68) after surgery. Preoperative lung volume was significantly correlated with preoperative vital capacity (VC) (γ=0.69; P<0.001) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV Compared to electrocautery, the use of a stapler for division of the intersegmental plane was associated with better perioperative outcomes, especially reduction of postoperative drainage time, and similar postoperative remnant lung volumes and function.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
We retrospectively compared the use of a stapler and electrocautery for division of the intersegmental plane during pulmonary segmentectomy.
METHODS METHODS
We enrolled 156 patients who underwent pulmonary segmentectomy in our department between March 2006 and August 2020. The patients were divided into electrocautery (n=62) and stapler (n=94) groups based on the device used to divide the intersegmental plane. Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and ratios of actual (calculated using software) to predicted (calculated by counting the resected segments) lung volumes were compared between the two groups. Additionally, we used multivariate analysis to identify the factors that contributed to the incidence of postoperative air leakage after cut-off value was set by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Moreover, a subset analysis was performed based on the type of segmentectomy (common or uncommon). Common segmentectomies included resection of the basilar or superior segment of the lower lobe, or lingular or upper division of the left upper lobe; all other segmentectomies were classified as uncommon.
RESULTS RESULTS
Compared to the electrocautery group, the stapler group had shorter operative times (P=0.0027), duration of postoperative drainage (P=0.00037), and duration of postoperative hospitalization (P=0.0021). Moreover, incidence of postoperative ≥3 days drainage was significantly reduced in the stapler group (P=0.003). There were no significant differences between the stapler and electrocautery groups in the actual:predicted lung volumes at 6 months (1.01 and 1.04, respectively; P=0.28) or 12 months (1.06 and 1.07, respectively; P=0.68) after surgery. Preoperative lung volume was significantly correlated with preoperative vital capacity (VC) (γ=0.69; P<0.001) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Compared to electrocautery, the use of a stapler for division of the intersegmental plane was associated with better perioperative outcomes, especially reduction of postoperative drainage time, and similar postoperative remnant lung volumes and function.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34992813
doi: 10.21037/jtd-21-1397
pii: jtd-13-11-6331
pmc: PMC8662472
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

6331-6342

Informations de copyright

2021 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-21-1397). HI serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Journal of Thoracic Disease from August 2020 to July 2022. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Références

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007 Mar;133(3):753-8
pubmed: 17320579
Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):e78S-e92S
pubmed: 23649455
J Thorac Dis. 2018 Apr;10(Suppl 10):S1215-S1221
pubmed: 29785296
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016 Oct;23(4):548-52
pubmed: 27324730
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009 Mar;35(3):414-8
pubmed: 18485724
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010 Jun;37(6):1433-7
pubmed: 20153214
Chest. 1995 Aug;108(2):341-8
pubmed: 7634864
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Mar 1;53(3):640-647
pubmed: 29048464
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009 Aug;36(2):374-7; discussion 377
pubmed: 19442531
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 Sep;138(3):613-8
pubmed: 19698845
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 May;137(5):1200-5
pubmed: 19379992
J Thorac Dis. 2016 Oct;8(Suppl 9):S716-S730
pubmed: 28066675
Ann Oncol. 2014 Aug;25(8):1462-74
pubmed: 24562446
Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Feb;67(2):234-238
pubmed: 30167925
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Sep;158(3):895-907
pubmed: 31078312
Ann Thorac Surg. 2013 Jun;95(6):2188-90
pubmed: 23706452
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011 Jul;40(1):e34-8
pubmed: 21450477
Ann Surg. 2021 Jan 1;273(1):163-172
pubmed: 30829700
J Thorac Dis. 2016 Aug;8(8):2158-64
pubmed: 27621872
Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 Jul;110(1):258-264
pubmed: 32171731
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012 Jan;14(1):5-11
pubmed: 22108951
Ann Surg. 1943 Sep;118(3):353-65
pubmed: 17858270
Ann Thorac Surg. 2012 Sep;94(3):929-34
pubmed: 22748642
Surg Case Rep. 2015 Dec;1(1):19
pubmed: 26943387
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009 Mar;35(3):408-13
pubmed: 19162496

Auteurs

Tomohiro Yazawa (T)

Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Maebashi Hospital, Maebashi, Japan.

Hitoshi Igai (H)

Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Maebashi Hospital, Maebashi, Japan.

Kazuki Numajiri (K)

Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Maebashi Hospital, Maebashi, Japan.

Fumi Ohsawa (F)

Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Maebashi Hospital, Maebashi, Japan.

Natsumi Matsuura (N)

Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Maebashi Hospital, Maebashi, Japan.

Mitsuhiro Kamiyoshihara (M)

Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Maebashi Hospital, Maebashi, Japan.

Classifications MeSH