The impact of surgical chest wall damage caused by classic thoracotomy on pulmonary function and morphology

  • Nobuyuki Yoshiyasu
  • Fumitsugu KojimaEmail author
  • Osamu Takahashi
  • Yuya Ishikawa
  • Toru Bando
Original Article



Postoperative changes in pulmonary function (PF) and morphology due to surgical chest wall damage by thoracotomy with rib resection are unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of surgical damage on PF and morphology at > 6 months postoperatively by comparing different lung lobectomy approaches.


A total of 140 patients who underwent lobectomy for lung diseases between January 2006 and March 2016 were analyzed. Patients who underwent PF tests and computed tomography (CT) scans preoperatively and postoperatively were divided into posterolateral thoracotomy with one rib resection (PT) group and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) group. A 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used to balance clinically important confounders between the groups. Regarding morphology, lung volume was measured semi-automatically using image analysis software and reconstructed three-dimensional (3D) images.


After PSM, 31 patients in each group were compared. Perioperative reduction ratios in forced vital capacity (FVC) (− 23% vs. − 13%; P = 0.006) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (− 19% vs. − 12%; P = 0.02) were significantly larger for the PT group. No significant differences in lung volume values based on 3D CT volumetry (PT vs. VATS; total lung volume: − 7.9% vs. − 7.2%, P = 0.82; non-resected ipsilateral lung volume: + 36% vs. + 40%, P = 0.69; contralateral lung volume: + 9.3% vs. + 9.4%, P = 0.98) were found in either group.


Among the patients underwent lobectomy, classic thoracotomy decreased PF by an additional FVC loss of 10% and FEV1 loss of 7% compared with VATS, without affecting residual lung volume.


Lung cancer VATS Chest wall resection 




Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.


  1. 1.
    Seder CW, Salati M, Kozower BD, Wright CD, Falcoz PE, Brunelli A, et al. Variation in pulmonary resection practices between the society of thoracic surgeons and the European society of thoracic surgeons general thoracic surgery databases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:2077–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paul S, Jalbert J, Isaacs AJ. Comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted vs thoracoscopic lobectomy. Chest. 2014;146:1505–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oh DS, Reddy RM, Gorrepati ML, Mehendale S, Reed MF. Robotic-assisted, video-assisted thoracoscopic and open lobectomy: propensity-matched analysis of recent premier data. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104:1733–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Louie BE, Wilson JL, Kim S, Cerfolio RJ, Park BJ, Farivar AS, et al. Comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and robotic approaches for clinical stage I and stage II non-small cell lung cancer using the society of thoracic surgeons database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:917–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cerfolio RJ, Ghanim AF, Dylewski M, Veronesi G, Spaggiari L, Park BJ. The long-term survival of robotic lobectomy for non–small cell lung cancer: a multi-institutional study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155:778–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaur MN, Xie F, Shiwcharan A, Patterson L, Shargall Y, Finley C, et al. Robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic lung resection during early program development. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:1050–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lanuti M. Surgical management of lung cancer involving the chest wall. Thorac Surg Clin. 2017;27:195–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geissen NM, Medairos R, Davila E, Basu S, Warren WH, Chmielewski GW, et al. Number of ribs resected is associated with respiratory complications following lobectomy with en bloc chest wall resection. Lung. 2016;194:619–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zeiher BG, Gross TJ, Kern JA, Lanza LA, Peterson MW. Predicting postoperative pulmonary function in patients undergoing lung resection. Chest. 1995;108:68–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nakahara K, Monden Y, Ohno K, Miyoshi S, Maeda H, Kawashima Y. A method for predicting postoperative lung function and its relation to postoperative complications in patients with lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 1985;39:260–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu M, Wampfler JA, Dai J, Gupta R, Xue Z, Stoddard SM, et al. Chest wall resection for non-small cell lung cancer: a case-matched study of postoperative pulmonary function and quality of life. Lung Cancer. 2017;106:37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iwano S, Okada T, Satake H, Naganawa S. 3D-CT volumetry of the lung using multidetector row CT: comparison with pulmonary function tests. Acad Radiol. 2009;16:250–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iwano S, Kitano M, Matsuo K. Pulmonary lobar volumetry using novel volumetric computer-aided diagnosis and computed tomography. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17:59–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ueda K, Tanaka T, Hayashi M. Compensation of pulmonary function after upper lobectomy versus lower lobectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:762–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kubota M, Kobayashi H, Quanjer PH, Omori H, Tatsumi K, Kanazawa M. Reference values for spirometry, including vital capacity, in Japanese adults calculated with the LMS method and compared with previous values. Respir Invest. 2014;52:242–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu M, Wampfler JA, Dai J. Chest wall resection for non-small cell lung cancer: a case-matched study of postoperative pulmonary function and quality of life. Lung Cancer. 2017;106:37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leuzzi G, Nachira D, Cesario A. Chest wall tumors and prosthetic reconstruction: a comparative analysis on functional outcome. Thorac Cancer. 2015;6:247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen F, Kubo T, Shoji T. Comparison of pulmonary function test and computed tomography volumetry in living lung donors. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:572–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kojima K, Kato K, Oto T. Preoperative graft volume assessment with 3D-CT volumetry in living-donor lobar lung transplantations. Acta Med Okayama. 2011;65:265–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen F, Fujinaga T, Bando T, Date H. Pulmonary function of individual lung lobes after complex living-donor lobar lung transplantation using inspiratory and expiratory three-dimensional computed tomographic volumetry. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;15:1077–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yabuuchi H, Kawanami S, Kamitani T. Prediction of post-operative pulmonary function after lobectomy for primary lung cancer: a comparison among counting method, effective lobar volume, and lobar collapsibility using inspiratory/expiratory CT. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1956–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nosotti M, Baisi A, Mendogni P. Muscle sparing versus posterolateral thoracotomy for pulmonary lobectomy: randomised controlled trial. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;11:415–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Thoracic SurgerySt. Luke’s International HospitalTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Center for Clinical EpidemiologySt. Luke’s International UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations