Comparing the Efficacy of Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery and Open Thoracotomy in Sleeve Lobectomy for the Treatment of Central-Type Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hua Cai,Canhua Huang,Hui-Chun Wu,Yihua Wu,Zhiyuan Huang,Shan Su,C H Li
2024-01-01
Abstract:Central-type Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) treatment involves different surgical techniques, including Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) and Open Thoracotomy Sleeve Lobectomy. However, there remains a lack of consensus on the most effective treatment modality.This study strictly adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Four electronic databases were searched without time or language limitation, and studies comparing VATS and Open Thoracotomy in patients with central-type NSCLC undergoing sleeve lobectomy were included. Primary outcomes were perioperative outcomes (blood loss, operation time, intraoperative lymph node dissection count, postoperative hospital stay, and complication rates), 3-year Progression-Free Survival (PFS) rate, and Overall Survival (OS) rate.The meta-analysis included six studies with 569 patients. VATS was associated with longer operation time [SMD = 0.75, 95% CI (0.29, 1.21)], less intraoperative blood loss [SMD = -0.23; 95% CI (-0.44, -0.01)], and shorter hospital stay [SMD = -0.53; 95% CI (-0.73, -0.34)]. There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative complications, and 3-year PFS and OS rates between the two groups.VATS sleeve lobectomy for central-type NSCLC results in less surgical trauma and quicker postoperative recovery without adversely impacting tumor prognosis compared to open thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy. Despite a longer operation time, VATS could be considered an alternative to open thoracotomy sleeve lobectomy. VATS sleeve lobectomy is a safe and effective alternative to open thoracotomy in treating central-type NSCLC, as it results in less surgical trauma and quicker postoperative recovery without impacting tumor prognosis negatively. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to verify these findings.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?