Virtual Library

Start Your Search

Makoto Yano



Author of

  • +

    P2.16 - Treatment of Early Stage/Localized Disease (Not CME Accredited Session) (ID 965)

    • Event: WCLC 2018
    • Type: Poster Viewing in the Exhibit Hall
    • Track:
    • Presentations: 1
    • Moderators:
    • Coordinates: 9/25/2018, 16:45 - 18:00, Exhibit Hall
    • +

      P2.16-31 - Examination of the Intersegmental Isolation Method in the Segmental Resection Considering Respiratory Function Preservation (ID 14320)

      16:45 - 18:00  |  Author(s): Makoto Yano

      • Abstract
      • Slides

      Background

      Segmental resection is often performed as limited operation for early lung cancer because it is usually considered the procedure to preserve respiratory function. There are two methods to isolate the intersegmental line. One is the method to isolate along intersegmental plane exactly with electric knife or ultrasonic scalpel and another is to cut the approximate intersegmental border while noting surgical margin with automatic suture instruments. The superiority of the respiratory function preservation effect among two is not known. So we examined which is better method in the respiratory function preservation.

      a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method

      We targeted the cases respiratory function test were performed one year after operation among all patients which we underwent segmental resection for primary lung cancer between November in 2000 and March in 2017. We compared the recovery rate of postoperative vital capacity for preoperative vital capacity (=RRVC) and the one of postoperative forced expiratory volume in one second for preoperative forced expiratory volume in one second (=RRFEV1) between the group with the method to isolate along intersegmental plane exactly (=ISPG) and the group with the method to cut with automatic suture instruments (=ASCG).

      4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result

      175 cases satisfied above detail. There were 119 cases in ISPG and 56 cases in ASCG. RRVC was 94% in ISPG and 88% in ASCG. RRFEV1 was 94% in ISPG and 90% in ASCG. The significant difference was shown in both RRVC (p=0.005) and RRFEV1 (p=0.03). The procedure which has enough numbers to be compared was the segmental resection of right S2 and either S6. Almost all other simple and complicated segmental resections were in ISPG. RRVC in the segmental resection of right S2 was 100% in ISPG and 85% in ASCG. RRFEV1 in the segmental resection of right S2 was 98% in ISPG and 84% in ASCG. RRVC in the segmental resection of right or left S6 was 88% in ISPG and 88% in ASCG. RRFEV1 in the segmental resection of S6 was 93% in ISPG and 91% in ASCG. The significant difference was shown in RRVC of the segmental resection of right S2 (p=0.04).

      8eea62084ca7e541d918e823422bd82e Conclusion

      We consider the isolation along intersegmental plane exactly is superior to the method with automatic suture instruments from the viewpoint of respiratory function preservation while the difference may depend on the resected segment. We guess it is expected that the difference of the respiratory function preservation effect between the two groups grows big as much as the intersegmental plane is large.

      6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.