A Retrospective Study of Effectiveness of Thoracoscopic Lobectomy and Segmentectomy in Patients with Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Abstract

Background. Surgical treatment is the first choice for non-small-cell lung cancer. To date, there are only few studies on the changes in laboratory indexes in two types of surgery, namely, thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmental pneumonectomy. Aim. To investigate the clinical impact of thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 94 patients with early-stage NSCLC in our hospital from October 2017 to October 2019. The patients were divided into two groups. The patients in control and observation groups received thoracoscopic lobectomy and thoracoscopic segmentectomy, respectively. The perioperative indicators, complications, lung function, T cell subsets, tumor markers, follow-up of tumor recurrence rate, and survival rate were compared between two groups. Results. The operation time of the observation group was longer, and the chest drainage volume was less at 24-48 h after the operation, and the chest tube indwelling time and postoperative hospital stay were shorter than those of the control group. No significant differences in complication probability were observed between two groups. The levels of FEV1, FVC, and MVV in the two groups were lower than those before the operation at 3 days after surgery, but the FEV1, FVC, and MVV levels in the observation group were higher than those in the control group. The CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels in the two groups were lower than those before the operation at 24 h and 72 h after the operation, but CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels in the observation group were higher than those of the control group. Conclusion. Thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmental resection have similar clinical effects in the treatment of early-stage NSCLC patients, but segmental resection can preserve healthy lung tissue as much as possible, with less trauma, protect lung function, and promote postoperative recovery.

Surgical Treatment is Still Recommended for Patients Over 75 Years with IA NSCLC: A Predictive Model Based on Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Database

“…26 In a retrospective study, it was found that lobectomy and segmental resection have similar clinical efficacy in the treatment of early NSCLC patients, 27 but segmental resection can maintain healthy lung tissue as much as possible, with less trauma, protect lung function, and promote postoperative recovery. 27,28 Several other population-based studies have found that lobectomy has a significant survival advantage over segmental resection. [29][30][31] With our results, lobectomy is more beneficial than segmental resection.…”

Effect of intelligent interactive projection combined with a three-ball respiratory trainer on shoulder mobility and pulmonary function in post- thoracic surgery patients: an interventional study

“…Lung cancer has a high incidence worldwide and is one of the leading causes of death among cancer patients [1][2] .Surgical resection remains the primary treatment for lung cancer patients, and lobectomy with regional lymph node dissection is widely accepted as the standard surgical procedure.This procedure aims to completely remove diseased tissues while preserving healthy lung tissues to effectively treat the disease [3][4][5] .It is a commonly used clinical treatment for lung cancer, known for its minimal invasiveness, reduced bleeding, and positive impact on postoperative recovery. However, patients' adherence to postoperative functional exercise can be in uenced by various factors [6] .…”

Retracted: A Retrospective Study of Effectiveness of Thoracoscopic Lobectomy and Segmentectomy in Patients with Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”

“…

This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:

…”