Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Radicality of mediastinal lymphadenectomy in minimally invasive pulmonary resection: a comparative analysis of uniportal and multiportal thoracoscopic approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is a serious health problem with a high mortality rate. In the context of surgical management, minimally invasive approaches, including uniportal thoracoscopic techniques, offer potential benefits such as faster recovery and increased patient cooperation. The aim of this study was to compare the accessibility of the mediastinal lymph nodes between uniportal and multiportal thoracoscopic approaches and to verify whether the use of the uniportal approach affects the radicality of the lymphadenectomy.

METHODS: A comparative study conducted from January 2015 to July 2022 at the University Hospital Ostrava focused on evaluating the radicality of mediastinal lymphadenectomy between subgroups of patients undergoing surgery using the uniportal thoracoscopic approach and the multiportal thoracoscopic approach.

RESULTS: A total of 278 patients were included in the study. There were no significant differences in the number of available lymphatic stations between the subgroups. The mean number of lymph node stations removed was 6.46 in the left hemithorax and 6.50 in the right hemithorax. Thirty-day postoperative morbidity for the entire patient population was 24.5%, with 18.3% having minor complications and 3.6% having major complications. The overall mortality rate in the study population was 2.5%, with a statistically significant difference in mortality between uniportal and multiportal approaches (1.0% vs 6.4%, p=0.020).

CONCLUSIONS: The uniportal approach demonstrated comparable accessibility and lymph node yield to the multiportal approach. There was also no difference in postoperative morbidity between the two approaches. The study suggests the possibility of lower mortality after uniportal lung resection compared with multiportal lung resection, but this conclusion should be interpreted with caution.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app