Indian Journal of Surgery

, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp 504–509 | Cite as

Pulmonary Function After Lobectomy: Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Versus Muscle-Sparing Mini-thoracotomy

  • Katsuo Usuda
  • Sumiko Maeda
  • Nozomu Motomo
  • Makoto Tanaka
  • Masakatsu Ueno
  • Yuichiro Machida
  • Motoyasu Sagawa
  • Hidetaka Uramoto
Original Article


Although pulmonary function was better after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy than after open thoracotomy lobectomy, it is unclear whether postoperative pulmonary function after VATS lobectomy is better than that after mini-thoracotomy lobectomy. The aim of this study is to determine whether the former is better than the latter. VATS lobectomies were performed using endoscopic techniques through a 3–4-cm skin incision spread by a silicon rubber retractor and two or three trocars. Mini-thoracotomy lobectomies were performed through a 7–12-cm skin incision spread by rib retractors made of metal and one or two trocars. Pulmonary function tests were performed a week before surgery and 3 months after surgery. There were 14 males and 11 females in VATS lobectomy and 32 males and 30 females in mini-thoracotomy lobectomy. For lobe location (right upper/right lower/left upper/left lower), there were 12/1/8/4 in VATS lobectomy and 16/19/13/14 in mini-thoracotomy lobectomy, respectively. The percent predicted postoperative forced vital capacity (FVC) (postoperative FVC/predicted postoperative FVC × 100) (110 ± 15 %) of VATS lobectomy was significantly higher than that (101 ± 16 %) of mini-thoracotomy lobectomy (P = 0.0124). The percent predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (postoperative FEV1/predicted postoperative FEV1 × 100) (110 ± 15 %) of VATS lobectomy was not significantly higher than that (104 ± 15 %) of mini-thoracotomy lobectomy (P = 0.091). Multiple regression analysis revealed that operative procedure (VATS lobectomy or mini-thoracotomy lobectomy) was the only significant variable contributing to percent predicted postoperative FVC (P = 0.0073) and percent predicted postoperative FEV1 (P = 0.0180). Postoperative FVC after VATS lobectomy is better than after mini-thoracotomy lobectomy.


Lung cancer Lobectomy Pulmonary function Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) Mini-thoracotomy 



Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery


Non-small cell lung cancer


Preoperative forced vital capacity

Pre FEV1

Preoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 s

Post FVC

Postoperative FVC 3 months after surgery

Post FEV1

Postoperative FEV1 3 months after surgery

Predicted post FVC

Predicted postoperative FVC

Predicted post FEV1

Predicted postoperative FEV1


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    McKenna RJ Jr, Houck W, Fuller CB (2006) Video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy: experience with 1,100 cases. Ann Thorac Surg 81:421–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shigemura N, Akashi A, Funaki S, Nakagiri T, Inoue M et al (2006) Long-term outcomes after a variety of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy approaches for clinical stage IA lung cancer: a multi-institutional study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 132:507–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitson BA, Andrade RS, Boettcher A, Bardales R, Kratzke RA et al (2007) Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is more favorable than thoracotomy for resection of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 83:1965–1970CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flores RM, Park BJ, Dycoco J, Aronova A, Hirth Y et al (2009) Lobectomy by video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) versus thoracotomy for lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 138:11–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nakata M, Saeki H, Yokoyama N, Kurita A, Takiyama W et al (2000) Pulmonary function after lobectomy: video-assisted thoracic surgery versus thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 70:938–941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaseda S, Aoki T, Hangai N, Shimizu K (2000) Better pulmonary function and prognosis with video-assisted thoracic surgery than with thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 70:1644–1646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirby TJ, Mack MJ, Landreneau RJ, Rice TW (1995) Lobectomy–video-assisted thoracic surgery versus muscle-sparing thoracotomy. A randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 109:997–1001, discussion 1001–2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    British Thoracic Society and Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland Working Party (2001) BTS guidelines. Guidelines on the selection of patients with lung cancer for surgery. Thorax 56:89–108Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    International Union Against Cancer (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th edn. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp 138–146Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seok Y, Jheon S, Cho S (2014) Serial changes in pulmonary function after video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy in lung cancer patients. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 62:133–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Long H, Lin ZC, Situ DR (2008) Injuries after lobectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and mini-thoracotomy. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 46:401–404 [Article in Chinese]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andreetti C, Menna C, Ibrahim M, Ciccone AM, D’Andrilli A et al (2014) Postoperative pain control: videothoracoscopic versus conservative mini-thoracotomic approach. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 46:907–912CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Surgeons of India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katsuo Usuda
    • 1
  • Sumiko Maeda
    • 1
  • Nozomu Motomo
    • 1
  • Makoto Tanaka
    • 1
  • Masakatsu Ueno
    • 1
  • Yuichiro Machida
    • 1
  • Motoyasu Sagawa
    • 1
  • Hidetaka Uramoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Thoracic SurgeryKanazawa Medical UniversityIshikawaJapan

Personalised recommendations