Learning curve for uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical segmentectomy

Introduction

Since it was first performed in a pulmonary lobectomy by the Spanish scholar Gonzalez in in 2011 (1), the uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (U-VATS) technology has been widely applied in surgical treatment of lung diseases. Compared to traditional multiport VATS, U-VATS has the advantage of significantly reducing incision pain as using a single small incision could effectively minimizes intercostal nerve injury during the operation (2). However, Surgeons who performed U-VATS segmentectomy may undergo a harder learning curve of pulmonary segmentectomy as the U-VATS segmentectomy is a complex and time-consuming procedure. A considerable learning curve must be overcome before a surgeon is proficient in using this technique in pulmonary resections (3). Interestingly, previous studies have provided different findings regarding the learning curves of U-VATS segmentectomy and robotic segmentectomy (3-6). Chen et al. concluded that the inflection point for completing the learning curve was reached after the considerable number of 57 cases (5), whereas Cheng et al. found that an experienced surgeon could achieve a relatively stable level after 33 cases (3). In other words, the learning curve of this complex procedure has not been fully clarified. Therefore, we speculate that the inflection point may not be an exact number because of the complexity of U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy. In the present study, we will explore a novel form to describe the inflection point.

In our institution, surgeons performed 3-port or 2-port VATS segmentectomy between 2014 and 2018, and anatomical segmentectomy by U-VATS has been attempted and completed since the beginning of 2019. The present study aimed to reassess the inflection point for the learning curve of U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy in a novel approach and to demonstrate the clinical advantages of U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy compared with non-U-VATS.

We present the following article in accordance with the STROBE reporting checklist (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-6113).

Methods

Patients and data collection

We retrospectively reviewed 122 consecutive patients who underwent U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy (Video 1) and 98 consecutive patients receiving 2- or 3-port VATS anatomical segmentectomy by the same surgeon from August 2017 to May 2020.

The inclusion criteria for U-VATS segmentectomy are listed as follows: (I) clinical stage 0 or IA patients with a ground glass opacity-dominant tumor ≤3 cm or a solid-dominant tumor ≤2 cm on preoperative high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) (7); and (II) patients with intraoperatively identified benign lesions, which were unsuitable for wedge resection due to inaccessible locations. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (I) patients who had received neoadjuvant treatment; (II) patients with more than one surgical site, and those who received ipsilateral reoperation or synchronous bilateral VATS; (III) patients on whom intraoperative pathology confirmed the presence of pleural or mediastinal metastasis; and (IV) those with severe and extensive adhesions of the entire pleural cavity. For all patients, blood routine examination, blood biochemistry, arterial blood gas analysis, coagulation function, electrocardiogram, pulmonary function, echocardiography, chest enhanced CT, abdominal and adrenal ultrasound, and pulmonary function were routinely performed before surgery.

Among the 122 patients receiving U-VATS segmentectomy, 116 received successful U-VATS pulmonary segmentectomy, while the other six patients underwent conversions to non-U-VATS (Table 1). Based on the previously reported experience in anatomical segmentectomy (8), we classified the procedure by U-VATS into three categories by the degree of difficulty of the segmentectomy (Table S1). Postoperative complications were divided into four levels according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (9), in which levels III and IV indicate serious complications. Postoperative pain scores were obtained using visual analogue scale (VAS), and nurses evaluated the VAS every 8 hours after surgery. Operative failure (Op-F) included intraoperative conversions, unplanned additional resection, or severe postoperative complications (Clavien ≥ III).

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). This retrospective clinical study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (No. JD-HG-2020-19). Individual consent for this retrospective analysis was waived.

Treatment

Before determining the surgical procedure, the blood vessels and bronchus of the target segment were evaluated based on enhanced chest CT. Three-dimensional reconstruction was performed to evaluate the resection distance of combined segments when the nodule was adjacent to multiple lung segments (10).

The patient was placed on surgeon’s side with double-lumen endotracheal intubation and combined intravenous-inhalation anaesthesia. The incisions of the upper lobe segmentectomy and the lower lobe segmentectomy were made at the 4^th and 5^th intercostal space of the anterior axillary line, respectively. The single incision was about 3–4 cm in length, and incision protector of a medium size was used routinely. The surgeon usually stood on the patient’s ventral side, while the assistant was on the opposite side of the surgeon. All procedures were performed using single-direction U-VATS under the guidance of a 10-mm, 30-degree, angled thoracoscopic video camera. The locations of the lesions were confirmed preoperatively using a hookwire, or were indicated according to the interrelated anatomical site intraoperatively.

The arteries and veins of the target lung segment were incised in different ways depending on the diameter of the vessel. The target bronchus was dissociated using an endoscopic stapler. The inflation-deflation method was used to identify the intersegment planes. When the intersegment planes were unclear, it was necessary to evaluate according to the venous trend. Finally, continuous suture with 4-0 polypropylene was performed if air leakage or severe bleeding at the cutting edge was encountered. In the event of malignancy, lymph node dissection was performed in accordance with accepted international general guidelines (11,12). During the operation, a pigtail tube (10F, Copper, China) or traditional thoracic drainage tube (24F, PAHSCO, China) was used for drainage according to the intraoperative conditions. The surgical incision was routinely sutured intracutaneously (Figure 1, Figure S1).

Figure 1 The surgical incision. (A) A patient with two pigtail tubes (10 F, Copper, China) whose surgical incision was sutured intracutaneously; (B) the surgical incision was healing well.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS26.0 software (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA). Measurement data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Comparison between groups was performed by analysis of variance. The Student’s t-test was applied to compare the distributions of continuous variables. And the χ² test and Fisher’s exact test were adopted to compare the frequencies of categorical variables between groups. A two-tailed P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was employed to analyze the learning curves of anatomical segmentectomy by U-VATS.

Results

An interval might be a more appropriate substitute for an absolute value as the breakpoint of the CUSUM curve

The CUSUM curve analyses on the operative time (Op-T) (Figure 2), postoperative hospital stays (Po-Hst) (Figure 3), and postoperative thoracic drainage (Po-D) (Figure 4) revealed two structural intervals of 20–29 cases and 58–63 cases. We selected the maximum of the two intervals as the breakpoints to divide 116 patients into three phases: Phase 1 (29 cases), Phase 2 (34 cases), and Phase 3 (53 cases). According to the distribution of the phases, three cases in Phase, one case in Phase 2, and two cases in Phase 3 underwent intraoperative conversions, respectively. As shown in Table 1, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics among the three phases. The proportion of level 1 segmentectomy in Phase 1 was significantly higher than that in Phase 3 (P=0.03). Meanwhile, even with increase in level 3 segmentectomy in Phase 3, the perioperative parameters in Phase 3 indicated an impressive improvement compared to those in Phase 1, including Op-T, Po-Hst, and Po-D (P<0.05) (Table 2). We further analyzed multiple types of Op-F: conversion, unplanned additional resection, and serious postoperative complications (Clavien ≥ III). Interestingly, the occurrence rate of Op-F in Phase 2 (17.6%) was not significantly lower than that in Phase 1 (31.0%) (P=0.214). Nevertheless, there was a notable decrease in the occurrence rate of Op-F in Phase 3 (9.4%) compared with that in Phase 1 (31.0%) (P=0.03) (Table 2).

Figure 2 Learning curve for uniportal thoracoscopic anatomical pulmonary segmentectomy (CUSUM analysis of Op-T). CUSUM (Op-T) plotted against case number (solid line). The two structural intervals of the CUSUM (Op-T) were 20 and 60 cases. CUSUM, cumulative sum; Op-T, operative time.

Figure 3 Learning curve for uniportal thoracoscopic anatomical pulmonary segmentectomy (CUSUM analysis of Po-Hst). CUSUM (Po-Hst) plotted against case number (solid line). The two structural intervals of the CUSUM (Po-Hst) were 25 and 63 cases. Po-Hst, postoperative hospital stay.

Figure 4 Learning curve for uniportal thoracoscopic anatomical pulmonary segmentectomy (CUSUM analysis of Po-D). CUSUM (Po-D) plotted against case number (solid line). The two structural intervals of the CUSUM (Po-D) were 29 and 58 cases. CUSUM, cumulative sum; Po-D, postoperative thoracic drainage.

U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy is an alternative to non-U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy for early-stage lung cancer

As shown in Table 3, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes of anatomical segmentectomy by U-VATS and non-U-VATS. Interestingly, it was revealed that U-VATS segmentectomy in Phase 3 was associated with significantly shorter Po-Hst (P=0.04), shorter Op-T (P=0.03), and less Po-D (P=0.046), as well as reduced postoperative VAS₂ (P=0.002) and VAS₃ (P=0.004) compared with non-U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy (Table 3).

Discussion

Anatomical segmentectomy is a safe and feasible surgical technique for early lung cancer, which can reserve more lung function than lobectomy (13-15). The VATS pulmonary segmentectomy technology has gradually changed from 4-, 3- and 2-port to uniport. The challenge with uniportal VATS was choosing appropriate angle and path when cutting off the vessels, the bronchus and the lung segments. However, these difficulties can be overcome by rationally selecting the incision position, sufficiently dissecting lung segments and properly using a rotating or a wisdom stapler (4). Despite the narrow space of a single surgical incision, Bertolaccini et al. (16) and Gonzalez-Rivas (17) believed that U-VATS can provide the same view as open segmentectomy for thoracic surgeons, especially in displaying the superior mediastinum and the local area. U-VATS has the advantage of significantly reducing incision pain as using a single small incision could effectively minimizes intercostal nerve injury during the operation (2). According to previous studies (4,18,19), U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy is an alternative to non-U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy for early-stage lung cancer, and is associated with less intraoperative blood loss (Op-B), shorter Op-T, and faster recovery. Similarly, in our study, we found that U-VATS segmentectomy could bring shorter Po-Hst, shorter Op-T, and less Po-D, as well as reduced postoperative pain, especially in Phase 3 (Table 3).

In this study, the main indicators for learning curve analysis were as follows: Op-T, conversion, Op-B, removal of lymph nodes, postoperative complications, and Po-Hsts (20). Op-F was defined as not only intraoperative conversions but also serious postoperative complications (16). As reported by Chen et al. (5), thoracic surgeons could preliminarily acquire the surgical techniques of U-VATS segmentectomy in Phase 1, while their additional experience might accumulate gradually in Phase 2, and Phase 3 represented an experienced period. Notably, the two transition intervals among the three phases should be evaluated by multiple perioperative characteristics. In this study, the CUSUM curve was assessed in different aspects, including Op-T, Op-B, Po-D, and Po-Hst. The structural intervals were thereby generated, based on which three phases of the CUSUM curve were divided and subsequently compared. As expected, significant differences in the aforementioned perioperative characteristics could be found among the three phases.

In terms of the structural intervals, we employed an interval instead of an absolute value in the current study. As mentioned above, previous studies (3,5) focused on providing a specific number as an indicator of achieving technical maturity. However, their conflicting results might be due to the diversity of anatomical structures of different segments. Therefore, we believed that an interval might be a more appropriate substitute for an absolute value as the breakpoint of the CUSUM curve. A surgeon could perform perfectly U-VATS segmentectomy in the treatment of lung cancer after the phase 3 of learning curve. Notably, only one breakpoint was available in both the CUSUM curve of Op-B (Figure S2) and that of Op-F (Figure S3), which might be explained by the abundant experience of our surgeons in VATS. Meanwhile, two structural intervals were observed in the CUSUM curves of Op-T and that of Po-Hst, with a similar result being observed in that of Po-D. Furthermore, the maximum of the two intervals was used as the breakpoint to divide the 116 cases into three phases, which exhibited an excellent distinguishing ability, as significant differences in Op-T, Po-Hst, Po-D and Op-F were observed between the initial and final phases.

Taking the complexity of U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy into consideration, we summarized several technical factors that might contribute to the learning curve of U-VATS segmentectomy. Firstly, preoperative CT-guided hookwire localization is an advisable technique to reduce the difficulty for surgeons to locate the lesions, which can therefore avoid intraoperative unplanned additional resection. Secondly, an experienced assistant is helpful to handle intraoperative emergencies, especially unexpected bleeding, which can likely occur in conversions. In addition, it is crucial for a surgeon to obtain standardized training in VATS, including selection of surgical incision, use of uniportal surgical instruments, and management of intraoperative emergencies, before performing U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy.

Several limitations need to be considered for this study. Firstly, the number of included patients was moderate, which limited our CUSUM curve analysis in different subgroups stratified by the degree of difficulty of the segmentectomy. Secondly, this report was composed of the learning process of a single surgeon, who had extensive experience with VATS lobectomy before initiating U-VATS segmentectomy, which limits the generalizability of our results. Moreover, previous surgeon experience and hospital volume may affect the learning process.

Conclusions

U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy is an ideal alternative to non-U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy, with advantages in shorter Po-Hst and Op-T, less Po-D, and reduced postoperative pain. Surgeons can preliminarily acquire the surgical techniques of U-VATS anatomical segmentectomy after completing 20 to 29 cases, and can master the procedure after completing 58 to 63 cases.

Acknowledgments

Funding: This study was supported by grants from the Jiangsu Key Research and Development Plan (Social Development) Project (BE2020653), the Suzhou Key Laboratory of Thoracic Oncology (SZS201907), the Suzhou Key Discipline for Medicine (SZXK201803), the Municipal Program of People’s Livelihood Science and Technology in Suzhou (SS2019061), and the Discipline Construction Project of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (XKTJ-XK202004).

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the STROBE reporting checklist. Available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-6113

Data Sharing Statement: Available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-6113

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-6113). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). This retrospective clinical study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (No. JD-HG-2020-19). Individual consent for this retrospective analysis was waived.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Gonzalez D, Paradela M, Garcia J, et al. Single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011;12:514-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Jutley RS, Khalil MW, Rocco G. Uniportal vs standard three-port VATS technique for spontaneous pneumothorax: comparison of post-operative pain and residual paraesthesia. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;28:43-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Cheng K, Zheng B, Zhang S, et al. Feasibility and learning curve of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy. J Thorac Dis 2016;8:S229-34. [PubMed]
4. Duan L, Jiang G, Yang Y. One hundred and fifty-six cases of anatomical pulmonary segmentectomy by uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery: a 2-year learning experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018;54:677-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Chen L, Pan Y, Zhang Q, et al. Learning Curve for Uniportal Thoracoscopic Anatomical Pulmonary Segmentectomy. Surg Innov 2020;27:378-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Zhang Y, Liu S, Han Y, et al. Robotic Anatomical Segmentectomy: An Analysis of the Learning Curve. Ann Thorac Surg 2019;107:1515-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Kamigaichi A, Tsutani Y, Fujiwara M, et al. Postoperative Recurrence and Survival After Segmentectomy for Clinical Stage 0 or IA Lung Cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2019;20:397-403.e1. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Oizumi H, Kanauchi N, Kato H, et al. Anatomic thoracoscopic pulmonary segmentectomy under 3-dimensional multidetector computed tomography simulation: a report of 52 consecutive cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;141:678-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Wu WB, Xu XF, Wen W, et al. Thoracoscopic Pulmonary Sub-Subsegmentectomy Based on Three-Dimensional Images. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;102:e389-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Hishida T, Saji H, Watanabe SI, et al. A randomized Phase III trial of lobe-specific vs. systematic nodal dissection for clinical Stage I-II non-small cell lung cancer (JCOG1413). Jpn J Clin Oncol 2018;48:190-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Hishida T, Miyaoka E, Yokoi K, et al. Lobe-Specific Nodal Dissection for Clinical Stage I and II NSCLC: Japanese Multi-Institutional Retrospective Study Using a Propensity Score Analysis. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:1529-37. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Song N, Duan L, Fang Z, et al. Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic left S4 anatomical segmentectomy. Thorac Cancer 2019;10:1248-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Zhao ZR, Situ DR, Lau RWH, et al. Comparison of Segmentectomy and Lobectomy in Stage IA Adenocarcinomas. J Thorac Oncol 2017;12:890-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. 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;9:1615-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Bertolaccini L, Rocco G, Viti A, et al. Geometrical characteristics of uniportal VATS. J Thorac Dis 2013;5:S214-6. [PubMed]
17. Gonzalez-Rivas D. Evolving thoracic surgery: from open surgery to single port thoracoscopic surgery and future robotic. Chin J Cancer Res 2013;25:4-6. [PubMed]
18. Wang BY, Liu CY, Hsu PK, et al. Single-incision versus multiple-incision thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy: a propensity-matched analysis. Ann Surg 2015;261:793-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Han KN, Kim HK, Lee HJ, et al. Single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic pulmonary segmentectomy: a report on 30 cases†. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016;49:i42-7. [PubMed]
20. Jiang L, Bao Y, Liu M, et al. Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic left basilar segmentectomy. J Thorac Dis 2014;6:1834-6. [PubMed]