Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 67(03): 216-221
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1606313
Original Thoracic
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Use of a Powered Stapling System for Minimally Invasive Lung Volume Reduction Surgery: Results of a Prospective Double-Blind Single-Center Randomized Trial

Ali Akil
1   Department of Thoracic Surgery and Lung Support, Klinikum Ibbenbüren, Ibbenbueren, Germany
,
Michael Semik
1   Department of Thoracic Surgery and Lung Support, Klinikum Ibbenbüren, Ibbenbueren, Germany
,
Stefan Freermann
1   Department of Thoracic Surgery and Lung Support, Klinikum Ibbenbüren, Ibbenbueren, Germany
,
Jan Reichelt
1   Department of Thoracic Surgery and Lung Support, Klinikum Ibbenbüren, Ibbenbueren, Germany
,
Bassam Redwan
1   Department of Thoracic Surgery and Lung Support, Klinikum Ibbenbüren, Ibbenbueren, Germany
,
Dennis Görlich
2   Institute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
,
Stefan Fischer
1   Department of Thoracic Surgery and Lung Support, Klinikum Ibbenbüren, Ibbenbueren, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

27 April 2017

21 July 2017

Publication Date:
13 September 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)-lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) represents an important treatment option for patients with advanced lung emphysema. For VATS lung resection, endoscopic staplers are routinely used. Recently, a new generation of electronically powered stapling systems was developed. In this study, the iDrive powered stapling system (Covidien, Germany) was first tested during VATS-LVRS and compared with a non-electronic conventional device.

Methods Forty patients with advanced emphysema were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial. All patients underwent bilateral VATS-LVRS. Patients were randomized for iDrive use on the right lung (n = 20) or left lung resection (n = 20). A conventional endoscopic stapler (EndoGIA, Covidien) was used for contralateral resection in same patients. Therefore, 40 resections were performed with the iDrive and 40 with the EndoGIA. The duration of surgery, air leakage after extubation, and on postoperative day 1 (POD1), as well as length of chest tube therapy, were documented.

Results The application of the new system was uneventful. Mean duration of surgery was 52 ± 2.5 minute in the iDrive group compared with 54 ± 3.8 minute in the EndoGIA-group (p = 0.5). After extubation, the mean air leakage in the iDrive-group did not differ significantly from that in the EndoGIA-group (p = 0.6). This was also observed on POD1 (p = 0.7). Moreover, length of drainage therapy also did not show significant differences between both groups (p = 0.6).

Conclusion The iDrive powered stapling system offers one-handed, push-button operation, which eliminates the manual firing force and possibly enables more precise resection. In the current study, the novel system led to comparable results with the conventional mechanical stapler without any disadvantages in patients undergoing bilateral VATS-LVRS.

Keywords

linear stapling device - lung volume reduction surgery - lung emphysema - video assisted thoracoscopic surgery

Disclaimer

The German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (DGTHG) and The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon neither endorse nor discourage the use of the new technology described in this publication.


Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Molnar TF. (Video Assisted) thoracoscopic surgery: Getting started. J Minim Access Surg 2007; 3 (04) 173-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Roviaro G, Varoli F, Vergani C, Maciocco M, Nucca O, Pagano C. Video-assisted thoracoscopic major pulmonary resections: technical aspects, personal series of 259 patients, and review of the literature. Surg Endosc 2004; 18 (11) 1551-1558
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Amosov NM, Berezovsky KK. Pulmonary resection with mechanical suture. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1961; 41: 325-335
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ravitch MM, Steichen FM, Fishbein RH, Knowles PW, Weil P. Clinical experiences with the Soviet mechanical bronchus stapler (UKB-25). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1964; 47: 446-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Acuff TE, Mack MJ, Landreneau RJ, Hazelrigg SR. Role of mechanical stapling devices in thoracoscopic pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg 1993; 56 (03) 749-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hood RM, Kirksey TD, Calhoon JH, Arnold HS, Tate RS. The use of automatic stapling devices in pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg 1973; 16 (01) 85-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fishman A, Martinez F, Naunheim K. , et al; National Emphysema Treatment Trial Research Group. A randomized trial comparing lung-volume-reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema. N Engl J Med 2003; 348 (21) 2059-2073
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Naunheim KS, Wood DE, Mohsenifar Z. , et al; National Emphysema Treatment Trial Research Group. Long-term follow-up of patients receiving lung-volume-reduction surgery versus medical therapy for severe emphysema by the National Emphysema Treatment Trial Research Group. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82 (02) 431-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lowdermilk GA, Keenan RJ, Landreneau RJ. , et al. Comparison of clinical results for unilateral and bilateral thoracoscopic lung volume reduction. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 69 (06) 1670-1674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Boley TM, Reid AJ, Manning BT, Markwell SJ, Vassileva CM, Hazelrigg SR. Sternotomy or bilateral thoracoscopy: pain and postoperative complications after lung-volume reduction surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 41 (01) 14-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bingisser R, Zollinger A, Hauser M, Bloch KE, Russi EW, Weder W. Bilateral volume reduction surgery for diffuse pulmonary emphysema by video-assisted thoracoscopy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 112 (04) 875-882
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ginsburg ME, Thomashow BM, Yip CK. , et al. Lung volume reduction surgery using the NETT selection criteria. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 (05) 1556-1560 , discussion 1561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 DeCamp Jr MM, McKenna Jr RJ, Deschamps CC, Krasna MJ. Lung volume reduction surgery: technique, operative mortality, and morbidity. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2008; 5 (04) 442-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stammberger U, Thurnheer R, Bloch KE. , et al. Thoracoscopic bilateral lung volume reduction for diffuse pulmonary emphysema. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1997; 11 (06) 1005-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Klepetko W. Surgical aspects and techniques of lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema. Eur Respir J 1999; 13 (04) 919-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hazelrigg SR, Boley TM, Naunheim KS. , et al. Effect of bovine pericardial strips on air leak after stapled pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 63 (06) 1573-1575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Roberson LD, Netherland DE, Dhillon R, Heath BJ. Air leaks after surgical stapling in lung resection: a comparison between stapling alone and stapling with staple-line reinforcement materials in a canine model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998; 116 (02) 353-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Juettner FM, Kohek P, Pinter H, Klepp G, Friehs G. Reinforced staple line in severely emphysematous lungs. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1989; 97 (03) 362-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gossot D, Nana A. Computer-controlled stapling system for lung surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80 (05) 1898-1901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Satoh Y, Hayashi S, Yamazaki H, Mikubo M, Naito M, Shiomi K. [Ultra powered stapling system for general lung surgery]. Kyobu Geka 2014; 67 (03) 225-228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cerfolio RJ, Tummala RP, Holman WL. , et al. A prospective algorithm for the management of air leaks after pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66 (05) 1726-1731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar