Impact of the Video-Assisted Lobectomy Approach on Maximal Oxygen Consumption, Pulmonary Function and Quality of Life of Lung Cancer Patients

Nowadays video-assisted lobectomy could be considered an appropriate treatment option for early stage lung cancer patients, as obtaining similar or even better early outcomes when compared to open standard lobectomy. This study was aimed at verifying the long-term impact (three months after surgery) of VATS-lobectomy technique on physical and mental status of patients undergoing lung resection for lung cancer and to compare the physical variation to the one registered after open approach. We enrolled patients treated by VATS-lobectomy at our institution since June 2012 to June 2015, comparing the preoperative physical evaluation (in terms of FEV1, DLCO and VO2max) and perceived quality of life (measured using the EORTC questionnaire) to the postoperative values. Moreover we performed a propensity score matching analysis to verify if the physical variation registered after VATS-lobectomy differed from that after open resection. We found a three months postoperative reduction of the physical indicators in comparison to the preoperative values (FEV1-variation: -8.3%, DLCO-variation: -12.4%, VO2max-variation: -6.6%). A similar negative trend was found for the psychological indicators, but the only parameter with a significative worsening was the perceived physical functioning (variation: -6.2%). The propensity score procedure yielded 83 well-matched open and VATS-lobectomy patients. The reductions in FEV1, DLCO and VO2max were similar in both groups (open patients’ reduction: FEV1 -10%, DLCO -11.9%, VO2max -5.5%; VATS patients’ reduction: FEV1 -7.2%, DLCO -10.6%, VO2max -6.9%), with a Cohen effect size < 0.2 for all the comparisons. In conclusion, VATS-lobectomy influences a reduction of the preoperative functional status three months after the operation, without affecting the postoperative perceived quality of life. Moreover VATS-lobectomy doesn’t offer any advantage in terms of FEV1, DLCO and exercise capacity recovery in comparison to the open approach.