Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2000
Lung volume reduction surgery for the treatment of severe emphysema: a study in a single Canadian institution.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tan A L, Unruh H W, Mink S N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and its effectiveness in improving pulmonary function, exercise capacity and quality of life in a population of emphysema patients referred to and screened in a single centre.
DESIGN: A prospective case series.
SETTING: A Canadian tertiary care hospital.
PATIENTS: Patients with severe emphysema, significant dyspnea and impaired exercise capacity interfering with quality of life.
INTERVENTIONS: Bilateral LVRS was performed through a median sternotomy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pulmonary function tests (preoperative forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1], residual volume [RV]), 6-minute walk (6 MW) distance, quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey) and degree of dyspnea (Medical Research Council of Great Britain dyspnea scale and the baseline and transitional dyspnea indices) were assessed before LVRS and at 6 and 12 months after.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were assessed for LVRS, of whom 10 were selected for surgery. Homogeneous distribution of disease was the most common reason for exclusion. Of the 10 patients operated upon, 1 died of acute cor pulmonale on the fourth postoperative day and 1 died of recurrent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic respiratory failure at 315 days postoperatively. In the surviving patients, the mean preoperative FEV1 increased from 0.70 L before surgery to 0.90 L at 1 year, with a mean relative increase of 33.4%. The mean RV decreased from 5.57 L to 4.10 L, with a mean relative decrease of 27.6%. The 6 MW distance increased from 302.7 m to 356.9 m at 1 year, with a mean relative increase of 21.6%. Quality of life and degree of dyspnea were improved significantly at 1 year after LVRS. Of the 5 patients on oxygen at home before surgery, 4 were able to reduce their requirements but not to discontinue oxygen.
CONCLUSIONS: LVRS is an effective palliative treatment for dyspnea and poor exercise tolerance in highly selected patients. Although the duration of palliation is unknown, our results show that improvements in pulmonary function, exercise, quality of life and degree of dyspnea are preserved over the first year. Only a minority of the patients screened were eligible for surgery. The 2 deaths in our series emphasize the need for even further delineation of selection criteria.
DESIGN: A prospective case series.
SETTING: A Canadian tertiary care hospital.
PATIENTS: Patients with severe emphysema, significant dyspnea and impaired exercise capacity interfering with quality of life.
INTERVENTIONS: Bilateral LVRS was performed through a median sternotomy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pulmonary function tests (preoperative forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1], residual volume [RV]), 6-minute walk (6 MW) distance, quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey) and degree of dyspnea (Medical Research Council of Great Britain dyspnea scale and the baseline and transitional dyspnea indices) were assessed before LVRS and at 6 and 12 months after.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were assessed for LVRS, of whom 10 were selected for surgery. Homogeneous distribution of disease was the most common reason for exclusion. Of the 10 patients operated upon, 1 died of acute cor pulmonale on the fourth postoperative day and 1 died of recurrent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic respiratory failure at 315 days postoperatively. In the surviving patients, the mean preoperative FEV1 increased from 0.70 L before surgery to 0.90 L at 1 year, with a mean relative increase of 33.4%. The mean RV decreased from 5.57 L to 4.10 L, with a mean relative decrease of 27.6%. The 6 MW distance increased from 302.7 m to 356.9 m at 1 year, with a mean relative increase of 21.6%. Quality of life and degree of dyspnea were improved significantly at 1 year after LVRS. Of the 5 patients on oxygen at home before surgery, 4 were able to reduce their requirements but not to discontinue oxygen.
CONCLUSIONS: LVRS is an effective palliative treatment for dyspnea and poor exercise tolerance in highly selected patients. Although the duration of palliation is unknown, our results show that improvements in pulmonary function, exercise, quality of life and degree of dyspnea are preserved over the first year. Only a minority of the patients screened were eligible for surgery. The 2 deaths in our series emphasize the need for even further delineation of selection criteria.