支气管镜肺减容现状和展望

外科肺减容手术治疗重度肺气肿术后病死率较高，适应证少，不适宜临床推广。支气管镜肺减容术通过支气管镜下的技术操作，简便、安全，有望替代外科肺减容术治疗重度肺气肿。目前研究比较有效的方法有支气管腔内单向阀、生物胶、蒸汽消融和肺减容线圈。支气管镜肺减容术治疗重度肺气肿，可以明显改善气促指数、6 min步行距离及生活质量(SGRQ)评分等主观指标，但对于评价该项技术有效性的客观指标如肺功能指标及运动耐力仅有部分改善。采用该项技术安全性好，住院时间短，极少出现危及生命的严重并发症，可能出现的并发症包括慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重、肺炎和气胸。下一步需开展前瞻性的随机对照研究，证实支气管镜肺减容术的确切疗效。     

单肺移植结合对侧肺减容术治疗终末期肺气肿一例

目的　探讨单肺移植结合对侧肺减容术治疗终末期肺气肿的手术适应证及疗效。方法　对 1例呼吸机依赖的重症肺气肿、肺功能严重下降的 4 7岁患者行左肺移植。术后第 7天因患者对侧肺逐渐过度膨胀致纵隔左移 ,压迫移植肺 ,而行右侧胸腔镜辅助小切口肺减容术。结果　肺减容术后第 1天患者纵隔移位明显改善 ,移植肺扩张良好 ;术后第 9、15天移植肺 2次出现急性排斥反应 ,用免疫抑制剂治疗 ,并于术后第 15天行气管切开、呼吸机间断辅助呼吸 ,病情缓解 ;术后第 2 4天患者下床活动 ,第 2 6天拔除气管插管 ;术后 2个月检查患者肺功能明显改善 ;术后第 71天出院。结论　单肺移植结合对侧肺减容术能治疗重症肺气肿单肺移植后的对侧肺过度膨胀 ,明显改善肺功能。     

肺减容手术的新评价

肺减容术[1] 是指用于治疗有明显肺气肿的严重的慢性阻塞性肺疾病 (ＣＯＰＤ)的多种外科手术方式的总称 ,目的是减轻气促等症状和一定程度改善肺功能。此类手术包括开胸或胸腔镜切除大的肺大泡和切除弥漫性肺气肿的肺组织。1　发展史195 7年Ｂｒａｎｔｉｇａｎ等报道从1940年代开始的系列的肺减容术治疗肺气肿。当时主要采用多处楔形切除肺组织的方法 ,在大部分的病人中取得临床疗效。然而 ,由于术后并发症和病死率高 (2 0 % ) ,限制了手术的开展。近年来 ,由于麻醉和手术后监护技术的提高 ,一些学者在肺移植治疗严重ＣＯＰＤ中注意到 :肺的…     

肺减容术治疗肺气肿患者的围手术期护理

肺气肿是慢性阻塞性肺疾病 (COPD)晚期最常见 ,最严重的并发症之一 ,既往的治疗方法主要是内科平喘和吸氧等治疗 ,但疗效欠佳 [1 ] 。肺减容术 (L VRS)是通过切除被破坏的肺组织 ,减少生理无效腔和肺动静脉分流 ,减少肺残气量 ,减轻肺阻力 ,改善肺通气和血流 ,增加肺的弹性回缩力 ,从而增加气体流动和减少肺过度膨胀 [2 ] ,以改善临床症状 ,提高生活质量。 1999年来我院先后施行 12例肺减容术治疗慢性阻塞性肺气肿 ,现将其围手术期护理报告如下 :1　临床资料本组 12例均为男性 ,年龄 6 5 - 72岁 ,术前诊断为慢性支气管炎并慢性阻塞性肺…     

右肺移植同期左肺减容术治疗终末期肺气肿的报告

目的　探讨人体单肺移植同期行对侧肺减容术(LVRS)在治疗慢性阻塞性肺气肿(COPD)中的治疗效果及经验。方法　供体:脑死亡患者,使用改良的4℃LPD肺保护液,顺行灌注后再逆行灌注,肺膨胀状态下取下整体肺块无菌冷保护下送受体手术室,解剖修整后取右肺供移植用。受体:终末期双侧COPD ,右侧重于左侧,切除右全肺,适当保留右主支气管、右肺动脉及右肺静脉心房袖供吻合,将供体右肺移植于受体右胸腔内,再作左肺上叶减容术,减容达左肺2 5 %。结果　手术经过顺利,移植肺成活,无急性排异反应。左肺减容侧因术后胸腔内活动性渗血再次开胸。患者肺功能恢复满意,已长期存活。结论　使用改良LPD液顺灌及逆灌供肺对保护其功能及减轻排异反应有明显的效果,气管套叠式吻合及吻合口周围使用生物蛋白胶对减轻支气管吻合口并发症有益。单肺移植同时进行另一侧肺减容对患者术后肺功能的改善有明显作用。     

肺减容术治疗重度肺气肿

目的 评价肺减容术治疗重度肺气肿的疗效、手术适应证选择及围手术期处理经验.方法 对我们收治的27例重度肺气肿病人所实施的肺减容术进行分析总结,27例中18例行单侧肺减容,9例行双肺肺肺减容.其中5例电视胸腔镜肺减容术（4例单肺,1例双肺）,13例电视胸腔镜辅助小切口肺减容术（9例单肺,4例双肺）,5例行经后外侧切口单肺减容术,4例为胸骨劈开双肺减容术.结果 LVRS术后FEV1平均提高42%,术后6～12个月,FEV1改善达高峰.手术死亡率为0,术后并发症发生率38%.结论 肺减容术能明显改善部分具有手术适应证的重度肺气肿病人的临床症状和生理状况.     

胸膜纤维板剥脱术治疗慢性结核性脓胸分析

目的：分析胸膜纤维板剥脱术治疗20例慢性结核性脓胸及合并症。方法：所有病例均行胸膜纤维板剥脱术，同时行2例干酪病灶清除，4例空洞清除,2例支气管胸膜瘘修补和1例T12L1椎体结核病灶清除术。结果：脓腔全部灭，空洞清除，瘘口闭合，肺内结核病灶稳定,肺功能明显改善。结论：胸膜纤维板剥脱术是治疗慢性结核性脓胸较理想的手术方法，可以扩大手术适应证。     

终末期COPD的治疗

肺气肿是一种严重威胁人类健康的慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD），临床表现为进行性呼吸困难，终末期肺气肿病人的5年生存率仅为25％左右。目前尚缺少治疗这一常见病和多发病的有效的内科手段，为探索治疗终末期肺气肿的有效手术方法，人们在过去的一个世纪中付出了艰苦的努力并取得了一些成绩，其中以肺移植术和肺减容术最为有效，本文就肺移植术和肺减容术对终末期肺气肿的治疗作一综述。     

阻塞性肺气肿的肺减容术治疗

肺减容术(LungVolumereductionsurgery,LVRS)是一项新的手术方式,最初是为了避免在等待肺移植期间因肺功能恶化死亡而失去移植的机会,作为肺移植的过渡手术,后来逐渐发展为治疗部分重度阻塞性肺气肿的有效方法。LVRS的治疗原理是:通过手术切除过度充气而膨胀破坏的无功能肺组织     

经支气管镜热蒸汽肺减容术的适应证

慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)是一种以不完全可逆气流受限为特征的进行性发展的慢性疾病。肺气肿是COPD的常见临床病理生理类型。以肺气肿为主的COPD患者,尤其对于重度或极重度肺气肿患者而言,内科药物治疗效果非常有限,因此对非药物治疗的探索成为近期的研究热点。国家肺气肿治疗试验的数据证明肺减容手术是治疗肺气肿的有效方法。本文就经支气管镜热蒸汽肺减容术的适应证作一综述。     

肺减容术治疗慢性阻塞性肺气肿疗效的临床观察

目的探讨肺减容术(LVRS)对慢性阻塞性肺气肿(COPE)患者的疗效。方法 23例该类患者用直线切缝器切除肺边缘20%～25%弥漫性大泡肺组织,常规用3/0prolene缝线连续往返缝合,必要时3/0prolene缝线加毛毡垫片行褥式缝合。结果本组共23例,采用LVRS治疗,无1例死亡,发生肺泡漏气者等并发症5例(21.7%)。23例中有17例随访,自觉症状均不同程度改善。结论 LVRS对于COPE患者,特别是合并多发性肺大泡患者的近期治疗效果明显,但远期效果仍有待进一步观察。该方法简单易行,易于基层医院推广。     

Lung volume reduction surgery as a bridge to lung transplantation

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) improves lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with advanced emphysema. In some patients with emphysema who are candidates for lung transplantation, LVRS is an alternative treatment option to lung transplantation, or may be used as a bridge to lung transplantation. Generally accepted criteria for LVRS include severe non-reversible airflow obstruction due to emphysema associated with significant evidence of lung hyperinflation and air trapping. Both high resolution computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest and quantitative ventilation/perfusion scan are used to identify lung regions with severe emphysema which would be used as targets for lung resection. Bilateral LVRS is the preferred surgical approach compared with the unilateral procedure because of better functional outcome. Lung transplantation is the preferred surgical treatment in patients with emphysema with alpha1 antitrypsin deficiency and in patients with very severe disease who have homogeneous emphysema pattern on CT scan of the chest or very low diffusion capacity.     

Short- and long-term results after lung volume reduction surgery

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is a palliative surgical procedure for patients with severe emphysema. Resection of nonfunctional emphysematous lung tissue has been reported to relieve breathlessness and to improve quality of life for many patients by improving lung elastic recoil, respiratory muscle function, and ventilation-perfusion matching. However, the risks and benefits of LVRS remain controversial, as mainly short-term data are available for carefully selected groups of LVRS patients and no prospective, randomized trials for LVRS with pulmonary rehabilitation versus optimal medical therapy plus pulmonary rehabilitation have been reported. Bilateral staple resection for LVRS appears to be superior to use of a laser or unilateral approach in the short term, but relatively little data exist on long-term outcomes. Additional clinical investigation is required to determine whether LVRS should be a widely accepted therapy for severe emphysema.     

Short- and long-term functional results after lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema.

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has emerged as a surgical therapeutic intervention for advanced emphysema. Designed for the relief of dyspnoea, LVRS has been demonstrated to be efficacious in a subset of carefully selected patients. Short-term improvements in dyspnoea are accompanied by improvements in forced expiratory volume in one second ranging 13-96%. Lung volumes likewise improve, with lessening of trapped gas, residual volume, and total lung capacity. Improvements in functional status and quality-of-life measures parallel the improvements in dyspnoea and lung function. One preliminary study suggests that life expectancy after 3 yrs may be improved following LVRS. Many questions regarding lung volume reduction surgery in terms of operative technique, selection of patients, and outcome remain to be answered. Data are available which begin to address some of these issues. Bilateral procedures have greater short-term improvements than unilateral procedures, but the rate of loss of function following the surgery may also be greater. Stapled resection of lung tissue has been demonstrated to be superior to laser ablation. In a majority of reports, outcome is superior in patients with heterogeneous distribution of their emphysema, and patients with alpha1-proteinase inhibitor deficiency emphysema do less well than patients with smoker's emphysema.     

Surgical aspects and techniques of lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema.

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has become an accepted procedure for palliative treatment of diffuse, nonbullous emphysema. Single or multiple peripheral segmental wedge resections of the most destroyed areas of the lungs are performed with the use of stapling devices, in order to decrease hyperinflation and restore diaphragmatic function. Median sternotomy, videoendoscopy or anterior muscle sparing thoracotomies have been used as surgical approaches. The functional improvement after bilateral resections exceed those after a unilateral approach. LVRS has demonstrated its potential as an alternative to transplantation, and with growing experience, the indications for the procedure have been widened. In selected patients with peripheral lung cancer who have been considered unsuitable for a surgical resection, the combination of both tumour resection and LVRS has successfully been performed. In contrast to LVRS, laser surgery of the emphysematous lung has been abandoned in most institutions.     

Lung volume reduction surgery: a survey on the European experience

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the activity and evolution in the field of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) performed at surgical centers in Europe. BACKGROUND: LVRS is a novel surgical therapy with the potential to improve lung function, exercise performance, and quality of life in selected patients suffering from severe pulmonary emphysema. METHODS: Questionnaire addressed to 75 European thoracic surgical centers presumed to perform LVRS, and review of the literature. RESULTS: Of 45 responding centers, 42 centers in 17 countries covering a population of 423 million reported performing LVRS. Until the end of 1998, 1,120 patients were reported to have undergone LVRS, corresponding to 2.6 patients/million inhabitants. Thirty-one of 40 centers (78%) perform the operation bilaterally. Most centers (83%) evaluate their activity prospectively. The average perioperative mortality rate of 4.1% is moderate. The most commonly utilized technique is video-assisted thoracoscopy, which is most frequently performed bilaterally. Two thirds of the centers treat patients with alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency, and half of the centers will consider patients with homogenous morphology of emphysema on CT scan for LVRS. Half of the centers also perform lung transplantation. The five largest centers have operated on 49% of all LVRS patients assessed by this survey. CONCLUSIONS: LVRS is performed at few thoracic surgical centers throughout Europe, with a large variation in the operative activity between different regions. Half of the centers also perform lung transplantation. Between 1995 and 1997, the number of LVRS procedures performed per year nearly tripled but has reached a plateau since then. As five centers perform nearly half the total number of operations, an optimal exchange of knowledge with smaller centers seems important.     

New and emerging minimally invasive techniques for lung volume reduction

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been shown to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, quality of life, and survival in selected patients with heterogeneous emphysema. However, LVRS is a major surgical procedure with potential morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive techniques are emerging to achieve lung volume reduction without open thoracotomy. Devices and techniques under study include one-way bronchial valves inserted via fiberoptic bronchoscopy to promote atelectasis in emphysematous lung, promotion of focal atelectasis and fibrosis by bronchoscopic injection of polymers into emphysematous regions of lung, bronchopulmonary fenestrations to enhance expiratory flow, and thoracoscopic plication or compression of emphysematous lung. The goal of all of these procedures is to replicate the benefit of LVRS without the trauma, risks, and extended recovery of open LVRS. Refinement and application of these techniques will allow patients with emphysema and their physicians and surgeons to choose from a number of viable options for lung volume reduction.     

Evidence-based medicine: lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS)

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) was developed as a means of surgical treatment for severe pulmonary emphysema. To date, various studies have been designed to explain the mechanisms involved in pathophysiological changes after treatment, to define criteria for patient selection, to identify the surgical technique of choice and to propose appropriate follow-up care. Preliminary results of follow-up studies (up to five years) have already been published, indicating improved pulmonary function and quality of life after surgical treatment. However, the alarming results from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) Research Group indicated a considerable risk for death in patients with homogenous emphysema and low forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) undergoing LVRS. This brief review summarizes the results of currently published studies to supply evidence for selection criteria in order to better define the subset of patients for which LVRS offers an effective and safe means of palliation from the symptoms of advanced COPD. Due to acceptable morbidity and mortality rates, stapler device wedge excision and closure has become the standard procedure for removing non-functioning, hyperinflated lung areas in heterogeneously affected organs. LVRS is carried out in two ways - using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) as well as thoracotomy/sternotomy-and performed in unilateral and bilateral procedures. In contrast, most clinics have found laser resection of emphysematous parenchyma to be unsuccessful. In some patients, LVRS was carried out as an alternative to lung transplantation, whereas in others, it served as a bridge-to-transplant procedure. LVRS has proven effective in the reduction of dyspnea, especially in patients with recovery options in both the circulatory and pulmonary system. In responders, recovery from labored breathing and O(2) dependency and increased physical capacity are usually accompanied by improved spirometric data. These results are mainly explained by a more regular breathing pattern and an increase in the maximum volume of ventilation in the affected lung. In most cases, functional improvement is maximized during the first six months postoperatively and decreases steadily thereafter indicating the need for a systematic postoperative patient care after surgical treatment. After indicating at-risk patients who should not be considered for LVRS, long-term results from the multicenter NETT research group will hopefully help clarify the impact of this treatment on survival of patients further.     

The National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) Part II: Lessons learned about lung volume reduction surgery

Substantial information regarding the role of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in severe emphysema emanates from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT). The NETT was not a crossover trial and therefore was able to examine the effects of optimal medical management and LVRS on short- and long-term survival,as well as lung function, exercise performance, and quality of life.The NETT generated multiple insights into the preoperative, perioperative,and postoperative management of patients undergoing thoracotomy; described pain control techniques that were safe and effective; and emphasized the need to address nonpulmonary issues to optimize surgical outcomes. After the NETT, newer investigation has focused on bronchoscopic endobronchial interventions and other techniques less invasive than LVRS to achieve lung reduction.In this review, we summarize what we currently know about the role of LVRS in the treatment of severe emphysema as a result of insights gained from the NETT and provide a brief review of the newer techniques of lung volume reduction.     

Role of computed tomography in guiding the management of peripheral bronchopleural fistula

The present study was designed to elucidate whether demonstration of a peripheral bronchopleural fistula on CT correlated with the need for surgical management. We retrospectively identified 33 patients, 24 males and nine females, mean age 38 years, with clinical diagnosis of peripheral bronchopleural fistula and whose chest CT scans and medical charts were reviewed. Each chart was reviewed to identify the cause of the peripheral bronchopleural fistula and its treatment. Treatment decisions were categorized as surgical or conservative. Each chest CT was evaluated for the cause of peripheral bronchopleural fistula as follows: bulla(e), lung abscess/necrotizing pneumonia, neoplasms, peripheral bronchiectasis, and trauma. The peripheral bronchopleural fistula was classified as visible on CT if a distinct channel between the lung or a peripheral bronchus and the pleura was seen on the lung windows.We found that CT was useful in guiding surgery by identifying and localizing the cause of the peripheral bronchopleural fistula in the 55% (18/33) of patients who required surgery. The peripheral bronchopleural fistula or its probable cause was identified in 91% (30/33) as follows: bulla(e) (n = 12), lung abscess/necrotizing pneumonia (n = 11), peripheral bronchiectasis (n = 5), malignancy (n = 1), and posttraumatic pneumatocele (n = 1). The peripheral bronchopleural fistula was right-sided in 24, left-sided in nine, and was visible on CT in 36% (12/33). Among the patients with bullae, 58% (7/12) required surgery; however, the peripheral bronchopleural fistula was visible on CT in only 8% (1/12). Among the 21 patients without bulla(e), the peripheral bronchopleural fistula was visible on CT in 52% (11/21). When the fistula was visible in this subgroup, 73% (8/11) required surgery compared with 30% (3/10) in whom the fistula was not visible (p = NS; Fisher exact). In conclusion, CT was useful in guiding surgery by identifying and localizing the peripheral bronchopleural fistula or its probable cause. Peripheral bronchopleural fistulas caused by bulla(e) were less likely to be visible on CT (p < 0.05). Excluding patients with bulla(e), our data suggest a trend toward the need for surgical management for patients in whom the peripheral bronchopleural fistula was visible on CT.