肺减容手术治疗重度阻塞性肺气肿

目的 :为了提高肺气肿患者的生存质量 ,探讨肺减容手术治疗重度慢性阻塞性肺气肿的可行性及预后。方法 :本组肺减容手术 6例 ,其中同期双侧肺减容手术 2例 ,分期双侧肺减容手术 1例 ,标准后外侧切口单侧肺减容手术 3例。术前根据计算机断层摄影术 (CT)和同位素肺通气灌注扫描选择肺气肿手术“靶区” ,术中使用带牛心包垫的直线切割缝合器切除病变 ,防止肺泡漏气。结果 :手术时间 110～ 2 6 0min ,平均 16 6min ;术后主要并发症有肺持续漏气≥ 7d 4例 ,呼吸衰竭 1例 ,心房颤动 1例 ,肺部感染 1例。 4例手术结束即拔除气管内插管 ,2例带管回病房需要机械通气。随访 2～ 4 3个月 ,4例健在 ,术后患者呼吸困难指数上升为Ⅰ级 1例 ,Ⅱ级 2例 ,Ⅲ级 1例。结论 :慢性阻塞性肺气肿病人选择性手术能改善患者肺功能 ,提高生存质量 ,长期效果有待进一步观察     

Bone mineral density improvement after lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe emphysema, bone mineral density (BMD) is reduced and the risk of osteoporosis is increased. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To identify the impact of lung volume reduction surgery on BMD. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Forty emphysematous patients, all receiving oral steroid therapy, underwent bilateral lung volume reduction surgery. Thirty similar patients, who refused the operation, followed a standard respiratory rehabilitation program. MEASUREMENTS: All subjects were evaluated pretreatment and 12 months posttreatment for respiratory function, nutritional status, and bone-related biochemical parameters. BMD was assessed by dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry. RESULTS: After surgery, we observed significant improvements in respiratory function (FEV1, + 18.8% [p < 0.01]; residual volume [RV], -29.6% [p < 0.001]; diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide [Dlco], + 21.6% [p < 0.01]) nutritional parameters (fat-free mass, + 6.0% [p < 0.01]), levels of bone-related hormones (free-testosterone, + 20.5% [p < 0.01]; parathormone, -11.2% [p < 0.01]), bone turnover markers (osteocalcin, -12.7% [p < 0.05]; bone-alkaline-phosphatase, -14.0% [p < 0.05]; beta-crosslaps, -33.6% [p < 0.001]), BMD (lumbar, + 8.8% [p < 0.01]; femoral, + 5.5% [p < 0.01]), and T-score (lumbar, + 21.0% [p < 0.01]; femoral, + 12.4% [p < 0.01]) with reduction in osteoporosis rate (50 to 25%). Nineteen patients who had undergone surgery were able to discontinue treatment with oral steroids. These subjects showed a more significant improvement in BMD (lumbar, + 9.6%; femoral, + 6.8%; p < 0.001) and T-score (lumbar, + 27.3%; femoral, + 14.3%; p < 0.001). The remaining 21 patients who had undergone surgery experienced significant improvement compared to respiratory rehabilitation subjects despite continued therapy with oral steroids (BMD: lumbar, + 4.5% vs -0.7%, respectively [p < 0.01]; femoral, + 2.7% vs -1.1%, respectively [p < 0.05]; T-score: lumbar, + 14 vs -2.1, respectively [p < 0.01]; femoral, + 7.4 vs -2.7, respectively [p < 0.01]). The increase in lumbar BMD was correlated with the surgical reduction of RV (p = 0.02) and with the increase in Dlco (p = 0.01) and fat-free mass (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Lung volume reduction surgery significantly improves BMD compared to respiratory rehabilitation therapy, even in patients requiring oral steroids. The increase in BMD correlates with RV, Dlco, and fat-free mass, suggesting that the restoration of respiratory dynamics, gas exchange, and nutritional status induces improvement in bone metabolism and mineral content.     

Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema

Over the past decades, extensive literature has been published regarding surgical therapies for advanced COPD. Lung-volume reduction surgery would be an option for a significantly larger number of patients than classic bullectomy or lung transplantation. Unfortunately, the initial enthusiasm has been tempered by major questions regarding the optimal surgical approach, safety, firm selection criteria, and confirmation of long-term benefits. In fact, the long-term follow-up reported in patients undergoing classical bullectomy should serve to caution against unbridled enthusiasm for the indiscriminate application of LVRS. Those with the worst long-term outcome despite favourable short-term improvements after bullectomy have consistently been those with the lowest pulmonary function and significant emphysema in the remaining lung who appear remarkably similar to those being evaluated for LVRS. With this in mind, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute partnered with the Health Care Finance Administration to establish a multicenter, prospective, randomized study of intensive medical management, including pulmonary rehabilitation versus the same plus bilateral (by MS or VATS), known as the National Emphysema Treatment Trial. The primary objectives are to determine whether LVRS improves survival and exercise capacity. The secondary objectives will examine effects on pulmonary function and HRQL, compare surgical techniques, examine selection criteria for optimal response, identify criteria to determine those who are at prohibitive surgical risk, and examine long-term cost effectiveness. It is hoped that data collected from this novel, multicenter collaboration will place the role of LVRS in a clearer perspective for the physician caring for patients with advanced 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.     

Effect of lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema on right ventricular function

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) can improve the functional capacity of selected patients with severe emphysema. Hypothesized physiologic effects of LVRS include an improvement in right ventricular function, although this has not been investigated in detail. To help clarify this issue, we used fast-thermistor thermodilution at rest and during submaximal upright exercise in 12 patients, before and 6 mo after bilateral LVRS. Preoperatively, all patients had severe airflow obstruction, with a mean FEV(1) of 0.69 L and an RV-to-TLC ratio of 0.67. Six months after LVRS, significant improvements occurred in respiratory function measures (+0.39 L in FEV(1), p < 0.002; and +/- 0.15 in RV/TLC ratio, p < 0.002) and in right ventricular function indexes measured at rest (+0.21 L in cardiac index [CI], p < 0.01; and +3.0 ml in stroke volume, p < 0.01) and during exercise (+0.9 L in CI, p < 0.002; +10.0 ml in stroke volume index, p < 0.002; and +20% in ejection fraction [EF], p < 0.002). A significant correlation was found between pre- to postoperative changes in the EF response to exercise and changes in the RV/TLC ratio (R = -0.68; p = 0.01). We conclude that a significant improvement in right ventricular performance, particularly during exercise, can occur 6 mo after bilateral LVRS.     

Lung volume reduction surgery versus conservative treatment in severe emphysema.

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been proposed for patients with severe emphysema to improve dyspnoea and pulmonary function. It is unknown, however, whether prognosis and pulmonary function in these patients can be improved compared to conservative treatment. The effect of LVRS and conservative therapy were compared prospectively in 57 patients with emphysema, who fulfilled the standard criteria for LVRS. The patients were divided into two groups according to their own decision. Patients in group 1 (n=29, eight females, mean+/-SEM 58.8+/-1.7 yrs, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 27.6+/-1.3% of the predicted value) underwent LVRS. Patients in group 2 (n=28, five females, 58.5+/-1.8 yrs, FEV1 30.8+/-1.4% pred) preferred to postpone LVRS. There were no significant differences in lung function between the two groups at baseline; however, there was a tendency towards better functional status in the control group. The control group had a better modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnea score (3.1+/-0.15 versus 3.5+/-0.1, p<0.04). Model-based comparisons were used to estimate the differences between the two groups over 18 months. Significant improvements were observed in the LVRS group compared to the control group in FEV1, total lung capacity (TLC), Residual volume (RV), MMRC dyspnea score and 6-min walking distance on all follow up visits. The estimated difference in FEV1 was 33% (95% confidence interval 13-58%; p>0.0001), in TLC 12.9% (7.9-18.8%; p>0.0001), in RV 60.9% 32.6-89.2%; p>0.0001), in 6-min walking distance 230 m (138-322 m; p<0.002) and in MMRC dyspnoea score 1.17 (0.79-1.55; p<0.0001). In conclusion, lung volume reduction surgery is more effective than conservative treatment for the improvement of dyspnoea, lung function and exercise capacity in selected patients with severe emphysema.     

Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema and bullous pulmonary emphysema

The improvement of respiratory symptoms for emphysematous patients by surgery is a concept that has evolved over time. Initially used for giant bullae, this surgery was then applied to patients with diffuse microbullous emphysema. The physiological and pathological concepts underlying these surgical procedures are the same in both cases: improve respiratory performance by reducing the high intrapleural pressure. The functional benefit of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in the severe diffuse emphysema has been validated by the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) and the later studies which allowed to identify prognostic factors. The quality of the clinical, morphological and functional data made it possible to develop recommendations now widely used in current practice. Surgery for giant bullae occurring on little or moderately emphysematous lung is often a simpler approach but also requires specialised support to optimize its results.     

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.     

Physiological basis of improvement after lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema: where are we?

Lung volume reduction surgery has become an accepted therapeutic option to relieve the symptoms of selected patients with severe emphysema. In a majority of these patients, it causes objective as well as subjective functional improvement. A proper understanding of the physiological determinants underlying these beneficial effects appears very important in order to better select patients for the procedure that is currently largely carried out on an empirical basis. Lung volume reduction surgery has two distinct effects. Firstly, it causes an increased elastic recoil, which at least partially explains the enhanced maximal expiratory flow. Secondly, it is associated with a reduction of hyperinflation which allows for an increase in global inspiratory muscle strength and in diaphragmatic contribution to tidal volume as well as a decrease in the inspiratory elastic load imposed by the chest wall. Taken together, these effects result in a reduced work of breathing and in an enhanced maximal ventilation which both contribute to the increased exercise capacity and reduced dyspnoea after surgery. The improved lung recoil and the reduced hyperinflation after volume reduction surgery were the primary postulates upon which the usual selection criteria for the procedure were based. It is now likely that these are correct. Nevertheless, some patients do not benefit from lung volume reduction surgery and the current literature does not allow for a refinement of the selection process from a physiological point of view. The exact mechanisms underlying the improvement in lung recoil, lung mechanics, and respiratory muscle function remain incompletely understood. Moreover, the effects of lung volume reduction surgery on gas exchange and pulmonary haemodynamics still need to be more fully investigated. An analysis of the characteristics of patients who do not benefit from the procedure and the development of an animal model for lung volume reduction surgery would probably help address these important issues.     

Operative coloscopy: A current status appraisal

Summary Analysis of the responses to an attitudinal questionnaire answered by 130 surgeons active in colorectal surgery indicates that only 52 per cent consider themselves proponents of operative coloscopy. Despite the difficulty in accurately assessing attitudes, a slight trend of diminishing enthusiasm concerning coloscopy is noted. A too-low yield of additional polyp detection and a too-high risk of contamination were the objections most frequently raised by antagonists. While this survey indicates also that operative coloscopy performed in conjunction with colotomy and polypectomy remains a useful and rational procedure in the minds of most surgeons, its future application promises to be severely limited by the burgeoning use of flexible fiberoptic colonoscopy. Read at the meeting of the Pennsylvania Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March, 6, 1974     

Effect of lung volume reduction surgery on resting pulmonary hemodynamics in severe emphysema

RATIONALE: To determine the effect of medical treatment versus lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) on pulmonary hemodynamics. METHODS: Three clinical centers of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) screened patients for additional inclusion into a cardiovascular (CV) substudy. Demographics were determined, and lung function testing, six-minute-walk distance, and maximum cardiopulmonary exercise testing were done at baseline and 6 months after medical therapy or LVRS. CV substudy patients underwent right heart catheterization at rest prerandomization (baseline) and 6 months after treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 110 of the 163 patients evaluated for the CV substudy were randomized in NETT (53 were ineligible), 54 to medical treatment and 56 to LVRS. Fifty-five of these patients had both baseline and repeat right heart catheterization 6 months postrandomization. Baseline demographics and lung function data revealed CV substudy patients to be similar to the remaining 1,163 randomized NETT patients in terms of age, sex, FEV(1), residual volume, diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide, Pa(O(2)), Pa(CO(2)), and six-minute-walk distance. CV substudy patients had moderate pulmonary hypertension at rest (Ppa, 24.8 +/- 4.9 mm Hg); baseline hemodynamic measurements were similar across groups. Changes from baseline pressures to 6 months post-treatment were similar across treatment groups, except for a smaller change in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure at end-expiration post-LVRS compared with medical treatment (-1.8 vs. 3.5 mm Hg, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to medical therapy, LVRS was not associated with an increase in pulmonary artery pressures.     

弥漫性肺气肿的肺减容手术治疗

弥漫性肺气肿的肺减容手术治疗田燕雏赵凤瑞林江涛弥漫性肺气肿是一种进行性加重并严重影响人们生活质量的疾病，属于慢性阻塞性肺疾病（ＣＯＰＤ）晚期最常见、最严重的并发症之一。我国１９７１年～１９７８年普查７８００万人，ＣＯＰＤ的患病率为２．５％～９．０％，...     

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction in severe emphysema

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) produces physiological, symptomatic, and survival benefits in selected patients with advanced emphysema. Because it is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and cost, nonsurgical alternatives for achieving volume reduction have been developed. Three bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) approaches have shown promise and reached later-stage clinical trials. These include the following: (1) placement of endobronchial one-way valves designed to promote atelectasis by blocking inspiratory flow; (2) formation of airway bypass tracts using a radiofrequency catheter designed to facilitate emptying of damaged lung regions with long expiratory times; and (3) instillation of biological adhesives designed to collapse and remodel hyperinflated lung. The limited clinical data currently available suggest that all three techniques are reasonably safe. However, efficacy signals have been substantially smaller and less durable than those observed after LVRS. Studies to optimize patient selection, refine treatment strategies, characterize procedural safety, elucidate mechanisms of action, and characterize short- and longer-term effectiveness of these approaches are ongoing. Results will be available over the next few years and will determine whether BLVR represents a safe and effective alternative to LVRS.     

Radiologic evaluation of emphysema for lung volume reduction surgery

Lung volume reduction surgery has created an opportunity for the advanced imaging of emphysema. Patients with CT or perfusion scintigraphy demonstrating an upper- or lower-lobe-predominant pattern of emphysema have better patient outcomes after LVRS than patients with emphysema diffusely or homogeneously distributed throughout the lungs. Some patients with diffuse or homogeneous emphysema may demonstrate improvement in function or dyspnea after surgery, but the magnitude of the improvement seen is less than in patients with heterogeneous emphysema, and the duration of benefit is not known. An ongoing, multicenter National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)/Health Care Financing Association (HCFA) sponsored trial of LVRS aims to determine whether LVRS together with maximal medical therapy and pulmonary rehabilitation improves patient outcomes compared with maximal medical therapy and pulmonary rehabilitation alone. This study will address the duration of clinical benefit and the cost-effectiveness of LVRS.