Lung-preserving surgery is comparable to lobectomy for intralobar pulmonary sequestration: A retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and recovery of lung-preserving surgery in patients with intralobar pulmonary sequestration, providing insights into surgical management strategies.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, patients diagnosed with intralobar pulmonary sequestration who underwent surgery between September 2013 and March 2025 were analyzed. According to the surgical technique, patients were categorized into lobectomy or lung-preserving surgery groups (segmentectomy, wedge resection, or vascular disconnection). Perioperative outcomes and short-term follow-up results were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients were included, comprising 53 lobectomies and 26 lung-preserving procedures (arterial disconnection, segmentectomy, or wedge resection). Compared with lobectomy, lung-preserving surgery showed shorter median operative time (67.5 vs 130.0 minutes, P < .001), less median blood loss (30.0 vs 70.0 mL, P < .001), and lower median drainage volume (120.0 vs 360.0 mL, P < .001). Median chest tube duration was shorter (1.9 vs 2.7 days, P = .022), whereas hospital stay was similar (3.8 vs 4.0 days, P = .087). Postoperative complications were infrequent and comparable; chylothorax occurred in 2 lobectomy cases and 1 lung-preserving case, all treated conservatively. There was no recurrence of symptoms or residual lesions on imaging at a median follow-up of 7.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung-preserving surgery appears to be a safe and effective alternative to lobectomy for selected patients with intralobar pulmonary sequestration, offering comparable short-term outcomes while reducing operative trauma.