Significance of percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass support for volume reduction surgery with severe hypercapnia

In patients with reduced respiratory function, lung resection is associated with high risk because separate ventilation is generally needed for safe management. For patients with end-stage emphysema, intraoperative respiratory management is important and particularly difficult because neither incomplete oxygenation nor selective ventilation can be performed, so the operation may be interrupted. In this study, we assess the effectiveness of the percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS) system for lung volume reduction surgery in patients with severe hypercapnia (arterial carbon dioxide tension >50 mm Hg) and discuss the significance of PCPS for patients who are beyond the standard criteria for lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). We studied 3 patients with severe hypercapnia due to emphysema who underwent volume reduction surgery. One patient was previously treated surgically for contralateral pneumothorax. All patients had a severe smoking history and were suspected to have fragile lungs. During the operation. PCPS provided sufficient support flow. Intraoperative management using PCPS was easy, and no severe complications were observed. One patient exhibited severe hemodynamic deterioration on postoperative Day 15. Other patients' PaCO2 improved postoperatively. One had a calcification of a femoral artery, but there was no trouble inserting a cannula. Bilateral or unilateral volume reduction surgery was performed under PCPS in patients with end-stage emphysema. We conclude that PCPS is an adjunct to LVRS, useful for intraoperative management of some patients with severe hypercapnea, and the LVRS indications can be extended.     

Surgery for lung volume reduction

OBJECTIVES: To define the place of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for non-bullous emphysema, to discuss the mechanisms of postoperative functional improvement and to suggest guidelines for perioperative medical management. DATA SOURCES AND EXTRACTION: The Medline data base was searched for any article (original papers, editorials, comments, reviews) published in English, French or German, from 1980 to April 1998. The key words were: lung volume reduction surgery, emphysema, respiratory failure, anaesthesia, lung transplantation. The data have been analysed to explain the physiological mechanisms underlying the postoperative improvements and to assess the risk-benefit ratio associated with LVRS. Finally, proposals are suggested for selection criteria and perioperative medical strategies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Besides pharmacological treatment and lung transplantation, LVRS is considered as an alternative treatment for patients with end-stage pulmonary emphysema. Perioperative management includes selective lung ventilation, continuous peridural analgesia and a general anaesthetic technique that can be easily reversed. Care should be taken to detect and rapidly correct dynamic hyperinflation, pneumothorax, tube malpositioning and major air leaks. In a majority of selected patients (70-80%), resection of 20-30% of lung volume produces significant clinical and physiological improvement (dyspnoea, exercise capacity, FEV1, VO2max), as well as of the quality of life that has been attributed to greater elastic recoil, reduced respiratory workload and better diaphragmatic and right ventricular function. The most common complication is prolonged air leaks. In-hospital mortality varies widely (0-20%, with a median value at 4%), depending in part on the experience of the surgical team and on the selection criteria. Several factors may predict an unfavourable outcome: advanced age, hypercapnia, diffuse emphysema, predominant airway disease and previous thoracic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: According to the favourable preliminary results and an acceptable incidence of perioperative complications, LVRS is presently considered as a new therapeutic option for some patients with respiratory failure. Future clinical studies should be focused on appropriate selection criteria, operative techniques and long term outcome data.     

电视胸腔镜肺减容术治疗27例重度肺气肿的疗效分析

目的探讨电视胸腔镜（VATS）下行肺减容术（LVRS）治疗重度肺气肿的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析27例重度肺气肿患者在电视胸腔镜下行LVRS的资料,其中双侧12例,单侧15例,切除每侧肺容积的20%～40%,比较手术前后的肺功能、血气分析等指标变化。结果 15例行VATS下单侧LVRS,4例同期行VATS下双侧LVRS,8例半年内分期行VATS下双侧LVRS,无死亡病例。术前与术后的各项指标比较,肺功能、血气分析及6min步行距离,差异有统计学意义。结论 VATS下LVRS治疗重度肺气肿可以取得良好疗效,双侧LVRS是更好的治疗手段。     

Technical issues and controversies in lung volume reduction surgery

The goal of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is to safely palliate dyspnea in patients suffering from emphysema. Successful LVRS demands attention to the details of patient selection, preoperative preparation, intraoperative anesthetic and surgical technique and multidisciplinary postoperative care. Expertise in and effective communication between pulmonary medicine, thoracic surgery, thoracic anesthesia, pain management services, critical care medicine, respiratory therapy and rehabilitation medicine are vital components to any LVRS program. In experienced centers, bilateral approaches yield nearly twice the physiologic benefit to unilateral LVRS without adversely affecting operative morbidity or mortality. Current practice favors stapled resection over laser ablation to achieve volume reduction. Controversy persists regarding open versus video-assisted operations. The cost-effective need for and choice of materials to buttress staple-lines to reduce the incidence of postoperative air leak have yet to be defined. Ongoing multi-center, randomized, controlled trials should define the utility and durability of LVRS for appropriately selected patients and resolve some of the residual technical controversies. Therapeutic innovations may further reduce the invasiveness of lung volume reduction strategies and allow a more tailored approach to palliate patients with moderate to severe emphysema.     

肺减容术治疗慢性阻塞性肺气肿

目的　为了提高肺气肿患者生存质量 ,探讨肺减容手术治疗慢性阻塞性肺气肿的可行性。　方法　本组肺减容手术 16例 ,其中同期双侧肺减容手术 9例 ,胸腔镜辅助小切口肺减容术 4例 ,标准后外侧切口单侧肺减容术 3例。术前根据计算机体层摄影术 (CT)和同位素肺通气肺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型切割缝合器切除病变 ,防止肺泡漏。　结果　手术时间 90～ 2 5 0分钟 ,平均 146分钟 ;主要并发症有肺泡漏≥ 7天 6例 ,心房颤动 2例 ,呼吸衰竭 1例 ,术后胸腔内出血 1例。 13例手术结束即拔出气管内插管 ,3例带管回病房需要机械通气。随访2～ 40个月 ,14例健在 ,术后患者呼吸困难指数上升为 级 1例 , 级 10例 , 级 3例。　结论　慢性阻塞性肺气肿选择性手术能改善患者肺功能 ,长期效果尚需要观察     

Anesthesia for lung volume reduction surgery

Background: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has become a novel palliative procedure for a subgroup of patients with advanced non-bullous emphysema. METHODS: Seventy-six patients with severe emphysema were evaluated: ten patients were considered for lung transplantation and only 24 underwent LVRS. In all patients an epidural catheter was inserted between the T5-T9 space. During one lung ventilation (OLV), ventilatory setting was adjusted to avoid air trapping and/or dynamic hyperinflation and high frequency jet ventilation was used when PaO2/ FiO2 was lower than 60 mmHg in 5 patients. Permissive hypercapnia (PaCO2=53 mmHg) was allowed to avoid hyperinflation and reach hemodynamic stability. RESULTS: During OLV PaO2/FiO2 was 148+/-80 mmHg, PaCO2 53+/-11 mmHg, mPA 27+/-2 mmHg and Qsp/Qt was 38+/-6%. Although the high risk patients, there were no complications due to hypercapnia during surgery. Twenty-three patients were extubated successfully at the end of the surgery (PaO2/FiO2 179+/-34 mmHg and PaCO2 59+/-11 mmHg) and only one patient was not extubated because of air leakage and died for postoperative respiratory failure after 20 days. Another patient died because of sepsis after 15 days. Numeric Ordinal Verbal Scale (by Keele modified) was used for postoperative pain degree at 0, 12th and 24th hours. No patients had pain>2. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, a careful anesthesia technique with an accurate intraop monitoring associated with thoracic epidural analgesia even in Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery is suggested in LVRS patients; 12 months postoperative data confirm the validity of the procedure (FEV1 24 AE 36%, FVC 53 AE 70%, RV 265 AE 199% and 6MWT 213 AE 330 m).     

Surgical treatment of end stage emphysema

Emphysematous changes are common in the general population. A significant number of these patients requires surgical interventions. Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) rapidly gained popularity without a sufficient evidence of beneficial outcome; the presumed mechanism of improvement in lung function is secondary to re-expansion of more normal, underlying compressed lung. The NETT study proposed to evaluate effectiveness of medical treatment vs LVRS in patients with severe bilateral emphysema. Complete results of the NETT study are unknown yet, but there are evidences of beneficial effects of LVRS, at least in a short term. The anesthetic management of these patients includes the continuation of the bronchodilator therapy till surgery, the use of steroids and antisialologue. Pain relief must be optimal and mobilization must be early. One lung ventilation is an absolute necessity, achieved with double lumen tube insertion.     

Lung volume reduction surgery combined with cardiac interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative course and functional outcome were evaluated in patients who underwent lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) or in combination with valve replacement (VR), percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), placement of a stent, or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: Patients with severe bronchial obstruction and hyperinflation due to pulmonary emphysema were evaluated for lung volume reduction surgery. Cardiac disorders were screened by history and physical examination and assessed by coronary angiography. Nine patients were accepted for LVRS in combination with an intervention for coronary artery disease (CAD). In addition, three patients with valve disease and severe emphysema were accepted for valve replacement (two aortic-, one mitral valve) only in combination with LVRS. Functional results over the first 6 months were analysed. RESULTS: Pulmonary function testing demonstrates a significant improvement in postoperative FEV1 in patients who underwent LVRS combined with an intervention for CAD. This was reflected in reduction of overinflation (residual volume/total lung capacity (RV/TLC)), and improvement in the 12-min walking distance and dyspnea. Median hospital stay was 15 days (10-33). One patient in the CAD group died due to pulmonary edema on day 2 postoperatively. One of the three patients who underwent valve replacement and LVRS died on day 14 postoperatively following intestinal infarction. Both survivors improved in pulmonary function, dyspnea score and exercise capacity. Complications in all 12 patients included pneumothorax (n = 2), hematothorax (n = 1) and urosepsis (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Functional improvement after LVRS in patients with CAD is equal to patients without CAD. Mortality in patients who underwent LVRS after PTCA or CABG was comparable to patients without CAD. LVRS enables valve replacement in selected patients with severe emphysema otherwise inoperable.     

Surgical interventions for emphysema

Three surgical procedures are pertinent to the treatment of end-stage emphysema: giant bullectomy, lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), and lung transplantation. Patients with localized disease manifesting as a giant bulla that compresses adjacent healthy lung tissues can be offered bullectomy. Patients with diffuse disease can be offered LVRS, lung transplantation, or staged LVRS/lung transplant, depending on multiple factors including age, lung function parameters, lobar predominance, and whether the disease is uni- or bilateral. Since end-stage emphysema is refractory to most medical treatment, surgery is often the only remaining option.     

Bullectomy is comparable to lung volume reduction in patients with end-stage emphysema.

OBJECTIVES: Emphysema is one of the most prevalent disabling diseases, not modified by current medical treatment and physical rehabilitation. Lung transplantation is an effective clinical option in end-stage emphysema but it is available only for a limited number of patients. Bullectomy and lung volume reduction represent other surgical options to improve symptoms and exercise tolerance in selected patients. Both procedures allow the removal of the area of emphysematous lung resulting in improvement in chest wall mechanics, ventilation/perfusion ratio and re-expansion and better function of the residual lung. There is some evidence that in patients with end-stage emphysema bullectomy and lung volume reduction work in the same manner and yield similar functional results. METHODS: We compared and analyzed retrospectively two groups of patients with end-stage emphysema who underwent bullectomy or lung volume reduction. Over the last 5 years 20 patients with end-stage emphysema presenting with bullae underwent thoracoscopic bullectomy (Group I). During the same period of time 18 patients with end-stage non-bullous emphysema underwent thoracoscopic unilateral lung volume reduction. Pre-operative baseline respiratory function data, peri-operative data, and functional results recorded at 6 and 12 months were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: Both groups were homogeneous in terms of age, degree of respiratory derangement and severity of emphysema. Complication rate and peri-operative data were similar in the two groups. Improvement in symptoms, respiratory function and exercise tolerance was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience supports the hypothesis that the physiopathological basis of respiratory improvement after bullectomy and lung volume reduction surgery in patients with end-stage emphysema is the same, although the exact mechanism remains incompletely understood.     

Lung Volume Reduction Surgery for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Where Do We Stand?

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is a promising new treatment for selected patients with moderate to severe symptoms of emphysema. Medical management, including pulmonary rehabilitation, has been shown to reduce oxygen requirements during exercise and probably to reduce hospitalization for patients with severe emphysema, but it does not improve pulmonary function. By improving the elastic recoil of the lung, LVRS is the first treatment to demonstrate substantial improvement in pulmonary function and quality of life for selected patients with emphysema. The most important selection factor for LVRS is the presence of a heterogeneous pattern of emphysema. Because it is found in only 20% of patients with emphysema, only a small number of patients are candidates for the procedure. Published reports indicate that the optimal operative technique appears to be a bilateral staple operation during a single anesthetic. This procedure offers a 68% chance of oxygen independence, 85% chance of prednisone independence, and 60% to 70% improvement in pulmonary function for patients with an upper lobe distribution of emphysema. The long-term benefits of the procedure are currently unknown, so several randomized, prospective studies are now comparing LVRS with maximal medical management.     

Salvage by volume reduction of chronic allograft rejection in emphysema.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that native lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) would improve respiratory function in patients who had previously undergone single lung transplantation for emphysema and who were disabled by obliterative bronchiolitis. METHODS: Seven single lung transplant recipients who had advanced bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS grade 3b), absence of active infection, and suitable anatomy underwent native LVRS. Mean time from lung transplantation to LVRS was 39 +/- 17 months. RESULTS: Mean FEV1 rose from 684 +/- 164 ml before LVRS to 949 +/- 219 ml at 3 months after LVRS, an increment of 40% (p = .002). Mean 6-minute walk rose from 781 +/- 526 ft before LVRS to 887 +/- 539 ft at 3 months after LVRS (p = .031), and mean dyspnea index declined from 3.1 +/- 1.1 before LVRS to 1.6 +/- 0.5 at 3 months after LVRS (p = .010). Mean native lung volume declined from 2956 +/- 648 ml before LVRS to 2541 +/- 621 ml at 3 months after LVRS, but the change was not statistically significant (p = .12). Mean transplant lung volume was little changed before and after LVRS (2099 +/- 411 ml and 1931 +/- 607 ml, respectively, p = NS). There was also a trend toward increased ventilation and perfusion of the native lung and reduction in ventilation and perfusion of the transplant lung, but these changes did not achieve statistical significance. By six months after LVRS, three patients died (two as a consequence respiratory failure), and survivors began to show evidence of deteriorating spirometry. CONCLUSIONS: LVRS is capable of salvaging respiratory function in chronic allograft rejection in emphysema by reducing native lung hyperinflation. These benefits, however, appear to be limited in magnitude and duration by the severity of the underlying allograft dysfunction.     

肺减容手术(LVRS)治疗重度阻塞性肺气肿

目的探讨重度肺气肿采用肺减容术的适应症、围手术期准备及手术方法。方法对6例重度肺气肿患者施行肺容积减少术，其中间期双侧2例，单侧4例。为控制肺切面漏气，缝合时衬以牛心包片。本组切除一侧肺容积25％—30％。结果无手术死亡。术后2例并发急性呼吸衰竭，经积极抢救处理而治愈。术后随诊3—12个月，肺功能有明显改善，PaO2均有显著上升，PaCO2亦有所下降。结论肺减容术是治疗严重肺气肿的有价值的治疗方法之一。     

Results of lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema

LVRS provides an exciting opportunity for palliation of symptoms and improvement in quality of life for patients who have severe end-stage emphysema. Because no medical therapy has been able to improve pulmonary function or reverse the inexorable decline of breathless patients who have emphysema, this opportunity to improve lung function and quality of life is one of the most innovative additions to thoracic surgery since the first successful lung transplant procedure 20 years ago. Although initial short-term, case-controlled surgeries were criticized because of incomplete and short follow-up care, substantial long-term data now exist to support the use of LVRS for select patients who have severe emphysema. Patients who have upper lobe predominant disease or low exercise capacity are more likely to have a benefit in exercise capacity and quality of life after LVRS. Selected patients who have upper lobe emphysema and poor exercise capacity are also more likely to have improved survival after LVRS. The individual contributions by the large number of investigators pioneering LVRS development, along with the collective contributions of the NETT investigators, have propelled the knowledge surrounding LVRS far beyond that of any similar new technology or procedure in its adolescence.     

Tracheal tube/laryngeal mask exchange to prevent coughing in lung volume reduction surgery

We report the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) to facilitate smooth emergence from anesthesia in 3 patients who underwent lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for severely symptomatic emphysema. To prevent coughing during emergence we replaced the endotracheal tube with LMA while patient was still in deep anesthesia. Emergence was smooth without coughing in all three patients, and ventilation with facemask was not needed after removal of LMA. We believe this technique is safe and beneficial for anesthetic management of LVRS.     

Lung volume reduction surgery: results of a Canadian pilot study. Canadian Lung Volume Reduction Surgery Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To present preliminary experience with lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) before the institution of the Canadian LVRS trial. DESIGN: A prospective case series between December 1995 and January 1997. SETTING: University hospitals in London and Hamilton, Ont. PATIENTS: Forty-nine patients who had disabling dyspnea or emphysema with hyperinflation, able to participate in respiratory rehabilitation. Twenty-three patients were excluded because of comorbid conditions precluding surgery, pulmonary hypertension, excessive steroid dependence, malnutrition, obesity, previous thoracotomy, large solitary bullae, concurrent malignant disease, chronic bronchitis, hypercapnia or psychiatric illness. INTERVENTIONS: Preoperative respiratory rehabilitation followed by LVRS via median sternotomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Impairment, disability and handicap were assessed before and 12 months after LVRS. Impairment was assessed by changes in pulmonary function test results and blood gas measurements, disability by the 6-minute walk test and cardiopulmonary exercise test, and handicap by the disease-specific chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ), the generic medical outcomes survey short form 36 (SF-36) and the generic health utilities index mark III (HUI-III). RESULTS: Two patients died of respiratory failure while in rehabilitation. Twenty-four patients (17 men, 7 women) successfully completed rehabilitation and underwent LVRS. The mean age was 63 years (range from 49 to 78 years) and the median length of hospital stay was 12.5 days (range from 7 to 90 days). Two patients (8%) died in the early postoperative period (within 30 days) of pneumonia. One patient died of respiratory failure 8 months after LVRS after a difficult 90-day postoperative hospital stay. There were 27 major complications. There was a 36% relative increase in the mean forced expiratory volume in the first second (p = 0.01) and a 10% relative increase in the 6-minute walk test (p = 0.06). The mean CRQ dyspnea score increased 2.3 points (p = 0.01), and the SF-36 general health domain increased 20 points (p = 0.01). There was no significant change in the HUI-III (p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: LVRS appears to lessen the respiratory impairment and handicap for at least 1 year in selected patients with advanced emphysema.     

电视胸腔镜辅助小切口行双侧肺减容术治疗重度肺气肿

目的:评价电视胸腔镜辅助小切口行双侧肺减容术治疗重度肺气肿的疗效,并总结围术期的处理经验。方法:回顾分析2006年以来为18例重度肺气肿患者实施肺减容术的临床资料,对比分析手术前后肺功能指标和动脉血氧分压的变化。结果:本组无手术死亡病例,2例合并急性呼吸衰竭。术后随访半年,平均第1秒用力呼气量增加39.2%,用力肺活量增加20.1%,残气量下降26.5%,肺总量下降23.1%,动脉血氧分压平均上升15.1%,与术前相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:电视胸腔镜辅助小切口行双侧肺减容术是经济有效的治疗方法,能明显改善重度肺气肿患者的临床症状和生理状况,增加活动能力。     

肺移植与肺减容术治疗终末期肺气肿的疗效分析

目的探讨肺移植和肺减容手术(LVRS)治疗终末期肺气肿患者的临床疗效及卫生经济学指标,为临床选择治疗方案提供参考。方法回顾性分析自2002年9月至2008年8月无锡市人民医院61例终末期肺气肿患者行LVRS和肺移植术治疗的临床资料,根据手术方式不同将61例患者分为3组,LVRS组:39例,行单侧肺减容术;单肺移植术(SLTx)组:14例,行SLTx;双肺移植术(BLTx)组:8例,行BLTx。于围术期、术后6个月、1年和3年住院复查肺功能、血气分析指标、6 min步行距离(6-MWD)的改变,观察1年、3年生存率。并通过成本-效用分析进行卫生经济学评价。结果术后6个月、1年和3年LVRS组、SLTx组和BLTx组FEV1.0较术前分别改善75%、83%和49%,176%、162%和100%,260%、280%和198%;LVRS组、SLTx组和BLTx组FVC分别较术前改善21%、41%和40%,68%、73%和55%,82%、79%和89%;LVRS组、SLTx组和BLTx组6-MWD分别较术前增加75%、136%和111%,513%、677%和608%,762%、880%和741%。LVRS组、SLTx组和BLTx组患者1年、3年生存率分别为74.40%和58.90%,85.80%和64.30%,62.50%和50.00%。SLTx组随访3年的成本-效用比高于BLTx组(1 668.00 vs.1 168.55,P<0.05)和LVRS组(1 668.00 vs.549.46,P<0.05)。结论 SLTx、BLTx组术后各项功能指标较LVRS组明显改善。3年内成本-效用分析结果表明,LVRS组更经济、实惠。随着医疗技术的进步、移植医疗费用的降低、免疫抑制剂的国产化价格降低,肺移植总费用也随之降低,肺移植术将成为终末期肺气肿患者首选的外科治疗方法。     

Surgery for volume reduction in chronic pulmonary obstructive disease

Pulmonary emphysema is an insidious disease and severe symptoms may not develop for many years. Most patients die within two years after medical treatment has became ineffective. In 1993, J. Cooper successfully revitalized lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), the most effective emphysema treatment after lung transplantation. Distinct from Brantigan's approach, Cooper performed a simultaneous bilateral procedure through a median sternotomy. In our experience, we perform a unilateral lung volume reduction through an anterior thoracotomy. The sustained beneficial effects for up to 24 months with unilateral LVRS and the preservation of the contralateral side for future interventions if required, renders unilateral LVRS an attractive concept in this difficult palliative situation. Although several large series reported significant improvement in the short and intermediate term, controversy remains regarding the long term clinical benefit, morbidity and mortality of this procedure. A long term randomized trial comparing LVRS with ongoing medical management, the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), was conceived. The NETT results, suggest that surgery increases the chance of improved exercise capacity, reduce the risk of death among patients with upper-lobe emphysema and low exercise capacity, increase the risk among patients with non-upperlobe emphysema and high exercise capacity, and have little effect on the risk of death in the other patients.     

Lung volume reduction surgery. Case selection, operative technique, and clinical results.

OBJECTIVE: A clinical study was undertaken to define optimal preoperative strategies and intraoperative techniques that would result in the least morbidity and maximum physiologic improvements in patients with end-stage emphysema selected for lung volume reduction surgery. BACKGROUND: Lung volume reduction surgery recently has been advocated as an alternative or a bridge to lung transplantation for patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The risks, benefits, and long-term results have not been clarified. METHODS: Twenty-six patients underwent lung volume reduction surgery with a 3-month follow-up on 17 patients. Preoperative and postoperative changes in pulmonary function parameters, quality of life, and oxygen requirement were analyzed. The value of preoperative localization of diseased lung segments and how this affects intraoperative resection is addressed. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent improvement in FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) and 23% improvement in FVC (forced vital capacity) were seen after lung volume reduction surgery. Supplemental oxygen requirement was decreased and 79% of patients reported a much better quality of life. Mortality was 3.8% and air leak morbidity was 18%. CONCLUSIONS: Lung volume reduction surgery can predictably improve objective and subjective pulmonary function in selected patients with end-stage emphysema with low morbidity and mortality. Careful patient selection, accurate preoperative localization of diseased target areas, skilled anesthetic technique, meticulous operative approach, and intense postoperative support are essential to achieve favorable results.