Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is an assumption that because EBLVR requires less use of hospital resources, offsetting the higher cost of endobronchial valves, it should therefore be the treatment of choice wherever possible. We have tested this hypothesis in a retrospective analysis of the two in similar groups of patients. METHODS: In a 4-year experience, we performed 177 consecutive LVR procedures: 83 patients underwent Robot Assisted Thoracoscopic (RATS) LVRS and 94 EBLVR. EBLVR was intentionally precluded by evidence of incomplete fissure integrity or intra-operative assessment of collateral ventilation. Unilateral RATS LVRS was performed in these cases together with those with unsuitable targets for EBLVR. RESULTS: EBLVR was uncomplicated in 37 (39%) cases; complicated by post-procedure spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) in 28(30%) and required revision in 29 (31%). In the LVRS group, 7 (8%) patients were readmitted with treatment-related complications, but no revisional procedure was needed. When compared with uncomplicated EBLVR, LVRS had a significantly longer operating time: 85 (14-82) vs 40 (15-151) minutes (p<0.001) and hospital stay: 7.5 (2-80) vs 2 (1-14) days (p<0.01). However, LVRS had a similar total operating time to both EBLVR requiring revision: 78 (38-292) minutes and hospital stay to EBLVR complicated by pneumothorax of 11.5 (6.5-24.25) days. Use of critical care was significantly longer in RATS group, and it was also significantly longer in EBV with SP group than in uncomplicated EBV group. CONCLUSION: Endobronchial LVR does use less hospital resources than RATS LVRS in comparable groups if the recovery is uncomplicated. However, this advantage is lost if one includes the resources needed for the treatment of complications and revisional procedures. Any decision to favour EBLVR over LVRS should not be based on the assumption of a smoother, faster perioperative course.