Objective To investigate the effect of modular disscection of mediastinal lymphadenectomy in uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (uniportal-VATS) for lung cancer radical resection and assess its safety and feasibility. Methods Data of 311 patients (171 males and 140 females, a mean age of 59.4±5.1 years) with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received modular dissection of mediastinal lymphadenectomy in uniportal-VATS or three portal VATS (3P-VATS group) during March to December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 208 patients (110 males and 98 females, a mean age of 59.2±5.3 years) in the uniportal-VATS group and 103 patients (61 males and 42 femals, a mean age of 59.7±5.1 years) in the 3P-VATS group. The effects of lymph nodes (LNs) dissection and postoperative clinical data were compared between the two groups, especially for N2 LNs dissection. Results There were no perioperative death in two groups. The overall number of dissected stations and LNs in the uniportal-VATS group (7.3±1.0, 17.5±3.0) were similar with those in the 3P-VATS group (7.2±1.0, 17.7±2.7, P=0.208, P=0.596). The dissected stations (uniportal-VATS: 4.3±0.7, 3P-VATS: 4.3±0.6) and number (uniportal-VATS: 8.6±1.1, 3P-VATS: 8.5±1.1) of N2 LNs were both similar between the two groups (P=0.850, P=0.587). The chest tube duration and postoperative hospital stay of uniportal-VATS group (4.4±1.3 d and 9.2±0.9 d) were much shorter than those of 3P-VATS group (5.0±1.3 d and 9.8±2.0 d, both P<0.001). No significant difference was found in morbidity rate between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Modular dissection of mediastinal lymphadenectomy could meet the requirment of radical resection and it is a safe and valid method which could be used during uniportal-VATS for radical resection of lung cancer.
Objectives To systematically review the efficacy and safety of non-systemic lymph dissection (NSMLD) vs. systemic lymph dissection (SMLD) for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library databases were searched online to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRCTs) of NSMLD vs. SMLD for NSCLC patients from inception to October, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 16 studies (4 RCTs and 12 NRCTs) involving 4 718 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: Compared with the SMLD group, the NSMLD group had higher mortality (HR=1.23, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.37, P<0.000 1). There were no significant differences in disease-free survival, local recurrence rate, distant metastasis rate, and safety between two groups. In addition, the NSMLD group had shorter operation time, and lower drainage and blood loss. Subgroup analysis was performed according to operation methods. The results showed that: NSMLD group by lymph node sampling (LN-S) had higher mortality than SMLD group (HR=1.43, 95%CI 1.17 to 1.75,P=0.004), NSMLD group by lobe-specific lymph node dissection (L-SLD) did not have higher mortality. Conclusions Current evidence shows that: compared with SMLD, NSMLD by L-SLD do not have higher mortality in early stage NSCLC patients, while NSMLD by LN-S have higher mortality. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusion.
Objective To compare lymph node sampling (LN-S) and lobe-specific lymph node dissection (L-SLD) in the clinical efficacy and safety for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods PubMed, Medline, EMbase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library databases were searched up to March 2017 for English language studies. We collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CS) which used the systematic mediastinal lymph node dissection (SMLD) and LN-S or L-SLD for the treatment of NSCLC. Direct meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software and indirect meta-analysis with ITC software after two researchers screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias independently. Results A total of 18 articles were included (4 RCTs and 14 CS, and 10 714 patients). Meta-analysis results showed that in the CS, compared with the the SMLD group, overall survival increased in the L-SLD group (HR=0.99, 95%CI 0.78 to 1.25, P=0.92), and overall survival decreased in the LN-S group with significant difference in CS (HR=1.43, 95%CI 1.17 to 1.75, P=0.000 4), but was not statistically significant in RCT (P=0.35). In terms of disease-free survival, there was no significant difference between the SMLD group and the LN-S group (HR=1.25, 95%CI 0.90, 1.62, P=0.10) as well as the L-SLD group (HR=1.15, 95%CI 0.92 to 1.43, P=0.23) in the CS. There was no significant difference in the local recurrence rate or distant metastasis rate between the non-systematic lymph node dissection (NSMLD) and SMLD in CS and RCTs (CS: P=0.43, P=0.39; RCT: P=0.43, P=0.10). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications between NSMLD and SMLD in the CS (OR=0.79, 95%CI0.58 to 1.09, P=0.15) and RCTs (OR=0.36, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.45, P=0.15). Indirect meta-analysis showed that risk of death decreased by 31% and risk of recurrence by 35% in the L-SLD group compared with the LN-S group (HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95, P=0.46; HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.30, P=0.72), but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion For early-stage NSCLC, L-SLD is not statistically different from SMLD in terms of survival; however, the overall survival of LN-S is lower than that of systematic lymphadenectomy. Indirect meta-analysis shows that L-SLD reduces the risk of death and recurrence risk compared with LN-S. There is no evidence to support both direct comparison of the prognosis of LN-S and L-SLD, therefore further prospective studies are still needed to verify.