Skip to main content
Download PDF

Systematic review and meta-analysis of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I non–small cell lung cancer

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 18, Article number: 44 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Whether video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy provide similar perioperative and oncological outcomes in stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still controversial.

Methods

Meta-analysis of 12 studies comparing outcomes after VATS lobectomy and VATS segmentectomy for stage I NSCLC. Data were analyzed by the RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

Disease-free survival (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.33, P = 0.39), overall survival (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38, P = 0.36), postoperative complications (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.75, P = 0.7), intraoperative blood loss (MD = 3.87, 95% CI − 10.21 to 17.94, P = 0.59), operative time (MD = 10.89, 95% CI − 13.04 to 34.82, P = 0.37), air leak > 5 days (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.17, P = 0.55), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 7.16, P = 0.49) were comparable between the groups. Postoperative hospital stay (MD = − 0.69, 95% CI − 1.19 to − 0.19, P = 0.007) and number of dissected lymph nodes (MD = − 6.44, 95%CI − 9.49 to − 3.40, P < 0.0001) were significantly lower in VATS segmentectomy patients.

Conclusions

VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy provide similar oncological and perioperative outcomes for stage I NSCLC patients.

This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO and can be accessed at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID = CRD42019133398.

Background

Advances in screening techniques have led to a marked increase in the number of small peripheral lung lesions being detected [1]. About 10% of these lesions turn out to be non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Lobectomy with radical lymph node dissection has been the preferred management for stage I NSCLC since 1995, when the North American Lung Cancer Study Group [2] reported better survival with lobectomy than with sublobectomy. The authors of the study recommended sublobectomy only for patients with limited cardiopulmonary reserve. However, the study included patients with various clinical stages and did not discriminate sublobectomy from wedge resection and segmentectomy, and so the conclusions have been questioned by some experts. Recently, there has been a revival of interest in sublobectomy, and segmentectomy in particular, for management of stage I NSCLC. Segmentectomy preserves lung tissue and so obviously protects lung function [3, 4]; in addition, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) segmentectomy [5,6,7,8], which is the preferred procedure, causes less postoperative pain and requires shorter hospitalization than thoracotomy. However, it remains unclear whether perioperative safety and long-term survival are comparable between stage I NSCLC patients treated with VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to determine whether perioperative outcomes (such as postoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, air leak) and survival (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]) were similar in stage I NSCLC patients treated with VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

Two investigators independently searched PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify relevant papers published between January 1990 and April 2019. The following keywords were used: “lobectomy AND segmentectomy” “lung cancer OR lung neoplasm OR non–small cell lung cancer OR NSCLC”, and “video-assisted thoracic surgery OR VATS”. There were no limits placed on study design or publication status (published or unpublished). The search strategy is comprehensively described in Additional file 1.

Selection criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis if they (1) were in English, (2) only included patients with clinical stage I NSCLC, and (3) compared the perioperative and/or survival outcomes (follow-up time ≥ 5 years) of patients treated with VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy. When the same data or data subsets were reported in more than one study, the one with the most details or the one most recently published was chosen. Case-only designs, case reports, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and animal studies were excluded.

Data extraction

Two investigators independently went through each eligible study and recorded data on the following: name of first author, year of publication, geographic area, study design, DFS, OS, postoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, air leak (> 5 days), in-hospital mortality, and number of lymph nodes dissected.

Quality assessment for included studies

The quality of each study was graded independently by two investigators using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS, for nonrandomized studies). The NOS analyzes three items—selection, comparability, and exposure—to evaluate study quality. The maximum possible score is 4 for selection, 2 for comparability, and 3 for exposure. A total score of 8 or 9 indicates high quality, and a score of 6 or 7 indicates medium quality.

Details of the protocol for this systematic review were registered on PROSPERO and can be accessed at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID = CRD42019133398. This study is presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) and SPSS 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Survival data (OS and DFS) were analyzed by using the hazard ratio (HR) and its standard error (SE). If the HR data were unable to be extracted directly from the included studies, we extracted data from Kaplan–Meier curves and calculated the data according to method provided by Tierney et al. [9]. The Kaplan–Meier curves were read by Engauge Digitizer version 4.1 (software downloaded from http://sourceforge.net/projects/digitizer/files/Engauge%20Digitizer/digitizer-4.1/). All calculations were performed independently by two of the authors; disagreements were settled by discussion. Higgins I2 statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity among the included studies. If no significant heterogeneity was detected (I2 < 50%, P > 0.1), the fixed-effects model was used to pool studies; otherwise, the random-effect model was used. For some of the studies, the original data were recalculated. Funnel plots were used to assess publication bias.

Result

Included studies

A total of 3299 publications were identified with the electronic search of the databases and the manual search of reference lists. Of these, 12 articles met our eligibility criteria (Fig. 1). These 12 articles involved a total of 2313 patients, with 750 who underwent VATS segmentectomy and 1563 who underwent VATS lobectomy. All 12 articles were retrospective studies. By the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, six articles were graded as good quality and six as medium quality (details are presented in Additional file 2). Table 1 presents the characteristics of the 12 articles.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram showing the process of selection of studies

Full size image
Table 1 Summary of the 12 studies included in the meta-analysis
Full size table

Primary outcome measures

Disease-free survival

Seven studies reported data on DFS. These 7 studies involved a total of 1184 patients, among whom 517 received VATS segmentectomy and 667 patients received VATS lobectomy. There was no heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0%, P = 0.86). The combined HR for DFS was 1.09 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.33). DFS was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.39, Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot for disease-free survival of the VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

Overall survival

Nine studies reported data on OS. These 9 studies involved a total of 2160 patients, among whom 935 received VATS segmentectomy and 1225 received VATS lobectomy. There was no heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0%, P = 0.85). The combined HR for OS was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.38). OS was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.36, Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot for overall survival of the VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

Postoperative complications

Eight articles reported data on postoperative complications. These 8 studies included a total of 1515 patients, among whom 463 received VATS segmentectomy and 1052 received VATS lobectomy. There was significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 62%, P = 0.01). The incidence of postoperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.75, P = 0.70, Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot for postoperative complications of the VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

Postoperative hospital stay

Six articles reported data on postoperative hospital stay. These 6 studies involved a total of 898 patients, among whom 304 received VATS segmentectomy and 594 received VATS lobectomy. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 24%, P = 0.25). Postoperative hospital stay was shorter in VATS segmentectomy patients than in VATS lobectomy patients. The difference in postoperative hospital stay between the two groups was statistically significant (MD = − 6.44, 95% CI − 9.49 to − 3.40, P = 0.007, Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot for postoperative hospital stay of the VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

Intraoperative blood loss

Five articles reported data on intraoperative blood loss. These 5 studies involved a total of 686 patients, among whom 218 received VATS segmentectomy and 468 received VATS lobectomy. There was no significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 47%, P = 0.11). The mean difference in intraoperative blood loss between the two groups was not statistically significant (MD = 3.87, 95% CI − 10.21 to 17.94, P = 0.59, Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot for intraoperative blood loss of the VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

Operation time

Seven articles reported data on operation time. These 7 studies involved a total of 970 patients, among whom 364 received VATS segmentectomy and 606 received VATS lobectomy. There was significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 95%, P < 0.001). The mean difference in operation time between the two groups was not statistically significant (MD = 10.89, 95% CI − 13.04 to 34.82, P = 0.37, Fig. 7)

Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plot for operation time of the VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

Air leak (> 5 days)

Seven articles reported data on air leak. These 7 studies involved a total of 1419 patients, among whom 411 received VATS segmentectomy and 1008 received VATS lobectomy. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 48%, P = 0.07). The difference in air leak between the two groups was not statistically significant (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.17, P = 0.55, Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Forest plot for air leak (> 5 days) of the VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

In-hospital mortality

Four articles were reported data on in-hospital mortality. These 4 studies involved a total of 665 patients, among whom 209 received VATS segmentectomy and 456 received VATS lobectomy. There was no heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0%, P = 0.97). The difference in incidence of air leak between the two groups was not statistically significant (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 7.16, P = 0.49, Fig. 9).

Fig. 9
figure 9

Forest plot for in-hospital mortality of the VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

Number of lymph nodes dissected

Four articles reported data on dissected lymph nodes. These 4 studies involved a total of 604 patients, among whom 264 received VATS segmentectomy and 340 received VATS lobectomy. There was significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 75%, P = 0.008). The number of dissected lymph nodes was more in VATS lobectomy patients. The mean difference in the number of dissected lymph nodes was statistically significant (MD = − 6.44, 95% CI − 9.49 to − 3.40, P < 0.01, Fig. 10).

Fig. 10
figure 10

Forest plot for dissected lymph nodes of VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

Publication bias

Funnel plots (standard error of OS) demonstrated marked symmetry, indicating absence of publication bias (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11
figure 11

Funnel plot for overall survival of the VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy groups in the studies analyzed

Full size image

Discussion

A number of recent systematic reviews have shown that segmentectomy can achieve the same survival outcomes as lobectomy in stage I NSCLC patients [22, 23]. The study of International Early Lung Cancer Action Program [24] even suggests that the prognosis for clinical stage I tumors up to 2 cm in diameter is superior with segmentectomy. However, there is a paucity of studies on VATS segmentectomy [7, 25]. The differences between VATS segmentectomy and lobectomy in survival outcomes, postoperative complications, number of lymph nodes dissected, and so on have not been adequately studied. A recent meta-analysis [26] that compared VATS segmentectomy with VATS lobectomy included 8 articles, with a total of 463 patients who underwent VATS segmentectomy and 1150 patients who underwent VATS lobectomy. The authors found no significant difference in OS (HR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.39, P = 0.85) or DFS (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.10, P = 0.56) between the two groups. However, the article did not analyze other outcomes.

Our meta-analysis included 12 studies that compared the perioperative and oncological outcomes of VATS segmentectomy versus VATS lobectomy in stage I NSCLC patients. Although those studies were retrospective in nature, they were all of moderate to high quality. We found that the outcomes were mostly comparable between patients undergoing VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy. There were no significant differences between the two groups in survival (OS and DFS) or in perioperative outcomes such as operative time, intraoperative bleeding, air leak (> 5 days), postoperative complications, and in-hospital mortality. However, postoperative hospital stay and the number of lymph nodes dissected were both significantly lower in patients undergoing VATS segmentectomy.

The effect of segmentectomy on prognosis is debated. While segmentectomy preserves normal lung parenchyma and is therefore claimed to be beneficial for pulmonary function recovery, it is not clear whether the retained lung parenchyma serves to improve prognosis [27] or whether insufficient resection actually worsens prognosis [28]. Some studies show comparable prognosis with VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy [29, 30], but others show poorer prognosis with the former [31, 32]. Most of the studies that demonstrated the superiority of lobectomy were not completely randomized and also did not consider other factors that could potentially affect survival, e.g., tumor size, type of procedure (wedge resection vs. segmentectomy), and the type of lymph node dissection. Our meta-analysis showed that retention of part of the lung parenchyma does not improve prognosis, and reduction in the extent of resection does not increase the risk of recurrence. These results are consistent with previous reports [4, 33, 34].

We found postoperative hospital stay to be significantly shorter after VATS segmentectomy. This was probably because patients who accepted VATS segmentectomy had more rapid lung recruitment and quicker return of lung function to optimal levels [35, 36]. The number of lymph nodes resected was significantly lower in VATS segmentectomy than in VATS lobectomy. This may have been because of the differences in the number of inter- and intra-segmental nodes dissected and also because lymph node sampling, rather than lymph node dissection, is generally adopted during VATS segmentectomy [20].

Most studies show that segmentectomy preserves more lung tissue and therefore promotes lung function recovery [33, 37, 38], but some reports suggest that the retained lung tissue provides little functional advantage [10, 39]. There could be several explanations. First, compensatory adaptation of the remaining lung may be better after lobectomy than after segmentectomy [40, 41]. Second, the intersegmental plane [42, 43] is created with an electrocautery device or an auto-suture device, but both methods have drawbacks, and perfect anatomical resection is not always possible; this may result in limited function of the retained lung. Unfortunately, data on lung function were not collected in this meta-analysis because there was no uniformity between the studies in the methods used for evaluation. However, this meta-analysis indicates that although retention of the lung parenchyma does not improve prognosis, it does accelerate postoperative recovery.

Some limitations of this study must be pointed out. First, all included studies were retrospective nonrandomized comparisons, with high probability of selection and reporting bias. Second, there was high heterogeneity among the studies with regard to postoperative complications, operation time, and number of dissected lymph nodes. Factors that may have been responsible for the heterogeneity include the level of experience of the surgeon and the shorter learning curve for VATS segmentectomy. The high heterogeneity can reduce the credibility of conclusions. Third, some studies did not report the precise clinical stage or explain the methods used for determining disease stage. PET-CT was used for staging of all patients in only three studies; in the other studies, some patients were staged with PET-CT and some by CT. The lack of uniformity in the methods and the uncertainty of the clinical stages might affect the reliability of our results. Fourth, some of the patients who underwent VATS segmentectomy were those who were considered unfit for lobectomy because of presence of comorbidities; this may have resulted in a selection bias and affected our results.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis shows that VATS segmentectomy and VATS lobectomy provide similar oncological and perioperative outcomes in stage I NSCLC patients. Well-designed large randomized clinical trials, with uniform and reliable pulmonary function indicators and staging measures (e.g., PET-CT), complete complications data, and long-term postoperative follow-up, are needed to confirm the findings of this study.

Availability of data and materials

All the data used in this study can be obtained from the original articles.

Abbreviations

DFS:

Disease-free survival

HR:

Hazard ratio

MD:

Mean difference

NOS:

Newcastle–Ottawa Scale

NSCLC:

Non–small cell lung cancer

OS:

Overall survival

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

SE:

Standard error

VATS:

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

References

  1. Kim SK, Allen-Auerbach M, Goldin J, et al. Accuracy of PET/CT in characterization of solitary pulmonary lesions. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(2):214–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ginsberg RJ, Rubinstein LV. Randomized trial of lobectomy versus limited resection for T1 N0 non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer Study Group. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60(3):615–22; discussion 622-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(95)00537-u.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Campione A, Ligabue T, Luzzi L, et al. Comparison between segmentectomy and larger resection of stage IA non-small cell lung carcinoma. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2004;45(1):67–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Okada M, Koike T, Higashiyama M, et al. Radical sublobar resection for small-sized non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132(4):769–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.02.063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shiraishi T, Shirakusa T, Iwasaki A, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) segmentectomy for small peripheral lung cancer tumors: intermediate results. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(11):1657–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-9269-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Atkins BZ, Harpole DH, Mangum JH, et al. Pulmonary segmentectomy by thoracotomy or thoracoscopy: reduced hospital length of stay with a minimally-invasive approach. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84(4):1107–12; discussion 1112-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.05.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schuchert MJ, Pettiford BF, Pennathur AF, et al. Anatomic segmentectomy for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: comparison of video-assisted thoracic surgery versus open approach. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138(6):1318-25.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.08.028.

  8. Leshnower BG, Miller DF, Fernandez F, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery segmentectomy: a safe and effective procedure. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(5):1571–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.01.061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tierney JF, Stewart LF, Ghersi DF, et al. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hwang Y, Kang CH, Kim HS, et al. Comparison of thoracoscopic segmentectomy and thoracoscopic lobectomy on the patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a propensity score matching study. European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;48(2):273–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Echavarria MF, Cheng AM, Velez-Cubian FO, et al. Comparison of pulmonary function tests and perioperative outcomes after robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy vs segmentectomy. Am J Surg. 2016;212(6):1175–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Landreneau RJ, Normolle DP, Christie NA, et al. Recurrence and survival outcomes after anatomic segmentectomy versus lobectomy for clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. Journal of clinical oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(23):2449–55. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.50.8762.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakamura H, Taniguchi Y, Miwa K, et al. Comparison of the surgical outcomes of thoracoscopic lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;59(3):137–41. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1250377.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roman M, Labbouz S, Valtzoglou V, et al. Lobectomy vs. segmentectomy. A propensity score matched comparison of outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(5):845–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.10.534.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shapiro M, Weiser TS, Wisnivesky JP, et al. Thoracoscopic segmentectomy compares favorably with thoracoscopic lobectomy for patients with small stage I lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(6):1388–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.02.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Song CY, Sakai T, Kimura D, et al. Comparison of perioperative and oncological outcomes between video-assisted segmentectomy and lobectomy for patients with clinical stage IA non-small cell lung cancer: a propensity score matching study. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(8):4891-4901. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.07.133.

  17. Soukiasian HJ, Hong E, McKenna RJ Jr. Video-assisted thoracoscopic trisegmentectomy and left upper lobectomy provide equivalent survivals for stage IA and IB lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(3):S23–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.05.071.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsubokawa N, Tsutani Y, Miyata Y, et al. Segmentectomy versus lobectomy for radiologically pure solid clinical T1a-bN0M0 lung cancer. World J Surg. 2018;42(8):2493–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4514-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang BY, Tu CC, Liu CY, et al. Single-incision thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy with radical lymph node dissection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(3):977–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.05.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yamashita S, Tokuishi K, Anami K, et al. Thoracoscopic segmentectomy for T1 classification of non-small cell lung cancer: a single center experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42(1):83–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezr254.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhong C, Fang W, Mao T, et al. Comparison of thoracoscopic segmentectomy and thoracoscopic lobectomy for small-sized stage IA lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94(2):362–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.04.047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bedetti B, Bertolaccini L, Rocco R, et al. Segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(6):1615-1623. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.05.79.

  23. Tan Q, Huang J, Ding Z, et al. Meta-analysis for curative effect of lobectomy and segmentectomy on non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(9):2599–604.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Altorki NK, Yip R, Hanaoka T, et al. Sublobar resection is equivalent to lobectomy for clinical stage 1A lung cancer in solid nodules. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(2):754–62; Discussion 762-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.09.065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ohtsuka T, Nomori HF, Horio HF, et al. Is major pulmonary resection by video-assisted thoracic surgery an adequate procedure in clinical stage I lung cancer? Chest. 2004;125(5):1742–6. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.125.5.1742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu Q, Wang H, Zhou D, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes after thoracoscopic sublobectomy versus lobectomy for stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther. 2016;12(2):926-31. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.174181.

  27. Gu Z, Wang H, Mao T, et al. Pulmonary function changes after different extent of pulmonary resection under video-assisted thoracic surgery. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(4):2331-2337. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.03.163.

  28. Sienel W, Stremmel CF, Kirschbaum AF, et al. Frequency of local recurrence following segmentectomy of stage IA non-small cell lung cancer is influenced by segment localisation and width of resection margins--implications for patient selection for segmentectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31(3):522–7; discussion 527-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.12.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cao C, Chandrakumar D, Gupta S, et al. Could less be more? A systematic review and meta-analysis of sublobar resections versus lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer according to patient selection. Lung Cancer. 2015;89(2):121–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.05.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bedetti B, Bertolaccini L, Rocco R, et al. Segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(6):1615-1623. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.05.79.

  31. Bao F, Ye P, Yang Y, et al. Segmentectomy or lobectomy for early stage lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezt554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang L, Li M, Yin R, et al. Comparison of the oncologic outcomes of anatomic segmentectomy and lobectomy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(2):728–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.08.080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Keenan RJ, Landreneau RF, Maley R, et al. Segmental resection spares pulmonary function in patients with stage I lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78(1):228–33; discussion 228-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.01.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Martin-Ucar AE, Nakas AF, Pilling JF, et al. A case-matched study of anatomical segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I lung cancer in high-risk patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27(4):675–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yoshimoto K, Nomori HF. Mori TF, et al. Quantification of the impact of segmentectomy on pulmonary function by perfusion single-photon-emission computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography. doi: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(5):1200–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.10.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Takizawa T, Haga MF, Yagi NF, et al. Pulmonary function after segmentectomy for small peripheral carcinoma of the lung. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;118(3):536–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70193-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Charloux A, Quoix E. Lung segmentectomy: does it offer a real functional benefit over lobectomy? Eur Respir Rev. 2017;26(146). pii: 170079. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0079-2017.

  38. Ueda K, Tanaka TF, Hayashi MF, et al. Computed tomography-defined functional lung volume after segmentectomy versus lobectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010 Jun;37(6):1433–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.01.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Harada H, Okada MF. akamoto TF, et al. Functional advantage after radical segmentectomy versus lobectomy for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80(6):2041–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Butler JP, Loring SF, Patz SF, et al. Evidence for adult lung growth in humans. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):244–7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1203983.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Mizobuchi T, Wada HF, Sakairi YF, et al. Spirometric and radiological evaluation of the remnant lung long after major pulmonary resection: can compensatory phenomena be recognized in clinical cases? Surg Today. 2014;44(9):1735–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-013-0702-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Suzuki H, Morimoto J, Mizobuchi T, et al. Does segmentectomy really preserve the pulmonary function better than lobectomy for patients with early-stage lung cancer? Surg Today. 2017;47(4):463–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-016-1387-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Miyasaka Y, Oh SF, Takahashi NF, et al. Postoperative complications and respiratory function following segmentectomy of the lung - comparison of the methods of making an inter-segmental plane. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011;12(3):426–9. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2010.253989.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the investigators, surgeons, and patients who participated in this study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China

    Weibiao Zeng, Wenxiong Zhang, Guangmiao You, Yu’ang Mao, Jianjun Xu, Dongliang Yu, Jinhua Peng & Yiping Wei

  2. Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China

    Jianyong Zhang

Authors
  1. Weibiao Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenxiong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianyong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guangmiao You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yu’ang Mao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jianjun Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dongliang Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jinhua Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yiping Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YPW and WXZ conceived and designed this study. GMY and YM performed the literature search. JJX, DLY, and JHP performed the data analysis. WBZ and JYZ wrote the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yiping Wei.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All analyses were based on previous published studies; thus, ethical approval and patient consent are not required.

Consent for publication

All analyses were based on previous published studies; thus, no consent for publication is required.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

Search strategy.

Additional file 2.

Quality assessment of all included studies.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeng, W., Zhang, W., Zhang, J. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I non–small cell lung cancer. World J Surg Onc 18, 44 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01814-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01814-x

Keywords

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us