Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction as the Treatment of Choice versus Robotic-Assisted Lung Volume Reduction Surgery in Similar Patients with Emphysema – An Initial Experience of the Benefits and Complications
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/copd.s442380
2024-05-09
International Journal of COPD
Abstract:Michelle Lee, Al-Rehan Dhanji, Periklis Perikleous, Ralitsa Baranowski, Kelvin Kar Wing Lau, David Waller Department of Thoracic Surgery, Barts Thorax Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK Correspondence: Michelle Lee, Department of Thoracic Surgery, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London, United Kingdom, Email Objective: There is an assumption that because EBLVR requires less use of hospital resources, offsetting the higher cost of endobronchial valves, it should therefore be the treatment of choice wherever possible. We have tested this hypothesis in a retrospective analysis of the two in similar groups of patients. Methods: In a 4-year experience, we performed 177 consecutive LVR procedures: 83 patients underwent Robot Assisted Thoracoscopic (RATS) LVRS and 94 EBLVR. EBLVR was intentionally precluded by evidence of incomplete fissure integrity or intra-operative assessment of collateral ventilation. Unilateral RATS LVRS was performed in these cases together with those with unsuitable targets for EBLVR. Results: EBLVR was uncomplicated in 37 (39%) cases; complicated by post-procedure spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) in 28(30%) and required revision in 29 (31%). In the LVRS group, 7 (8%) patients were readmitted with treatment-related complications, but no revisional procedure was needed. When compared with uncomplicated EBLVR, LVRS had a significantly longer operating time: 85 (14– 82) vs 40 (15– 151) minutes (p< 0.001) and hospital stay: 7.5 (2– 80) vs 2 (1– 14) days (p< 0.01). However, LVRS had a similar total operating time to both EBLVR requiring revision: 78 (38– 292) minutes and hospital stay to EBLVR complicated by pneumothorax of 11.5 (6.5– 24.25) days. Use of critical care was significantly longer in RATS group, and it was also significantly longer in EBV with SP group than in uncomplicated EBV group. Conclusion: Endobronchial LVR does use less hospital resources than RATS LVRS in comparable groups if the recovery is uncomplicated. However, this advantage is lost if one includes the resources needed for the treatment of complications and revisional procedures. Any decision to favour EBLVR over LVRS should not be based on the assumption of a smoother, faster perioperative course. Keywords: lung volume reduction, lung volume reduction surgery, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, endobronchial valve, emphysema Lung volume reduction (LVR) has developed considerably since the original description in the modern era. 1 It can now be performed successfully by bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves (EBLVR) 2 or minimally invasive lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) 3 and the two methods can be combined. 4 Despite a clear benefit in survival rate and durable improvement in symptoms following LVRS, the number of LVRS procedures performed has declined significantly. 5 The reason for this decline remains unclear. Instead, minimally invasive techniques such as EBLVR have emerged. Doom et al suggest that if the patients are eligible for both LVR techniques then EBLVR is preferable as the valves can be removed and thus the treatment remains reversible. 6 Both methods have been shown in a prospective, randomized comparison to give similar improvements in BODE index in patients with symptomatic emphysema receiving maximal non-invasive therapy. 7 However, Mansfield et al report that the patients perceive EBLVR to be more desirable than LVRS due to the "minimally-invasive" nature. 8 This perception is further encouraged by the assumption that because EBLVR requires less use of hospital resources, offsetting the higher cost of EBVs, it should therefore be the first treatment of choice where possible. 9 We have tested this hypothesis in a retrospective analysis of the two in similar groups of patients. We offered patients either robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS LVRS) or EBLVR with Zephyr ® endobronchial valves (Pulmonx Corporation, Redwood City, California). EBLVR was the treatment of choice in patients with no evidence of collateral ventilation (CV), while CV positive patients or those with imaging evidence of fissure integrity <90% or paraseptal emphysema proceeded directly to unilateral RATS LVRS. We compared the use of the hospital resources, including theatre time, critical care, hospital stay, readmission to hospital and further procedures. Patients' demographics, information about operative procedures or mortalities were retrieved retrospectively through the UK National Health Service's Care Record Service (NHS CRS). All patients were selected in line with the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance 10 and were discussed at a mu -Abstract Truncated-
respiratory system