These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison between quantitative computed tomography, scintigraphy, and anatomical methods for prediction of postoperative FEV1 and DLCO: effects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease status and resected lobes.
    Author: Yokoba M, Ichikawa T, Harada S, Shiomi K, Mikubo M, Ono M, Sonoda D, Satoh Y, Hanawa H, Naoki K, Katagiri M.
    Journal: J Thorac Dis; 2020 Oct; 12(10):5269-5280. PubMed ID: 33209361.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Postoperative assessment of pulmonary function is important for estimating the risk of thoracic surgery and long-term disability following pulmonary resection, including predicted postoperative (ppo) forced expiratory volume (FEV) in one second (ppoFEV1) and percent predicted lung diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (ppo%DLCO) estimation. The ppo values were compared using four different estimation methods between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and non-COPD patients and according to the resected lobe. METHODS: This prospective study included 59 eligible patients requiring single lobectomy and succeeded in performing pulmonary function tests at 3 and 12 months after lobectomy. The ppoFEV1 and ppo%DLCO were compared with poFEV1 and po%DLCO obtained at 3 and 12 months after lobectomy. The ppo values were estimated using the four usual methods: the 19-segment anatomical technique (S), perfusion scintigraphy (Q), quantitative CT (CT), and quantitative CT with low attenuation volume (CTLAV) subtraction. RESULTS: For non-COPD and COPD patients, the smallest mean difference between ppo and po values was observed by S for FEV1 and %DLCO. Based on the resected lobe, the smallest mean difference was observed by (I) Q for right upper lobectomy (RUL) excluding %DLCO at 12 months by S, (II) S for left upper lobectomy (LUL), (III) CT and CTLAV for right lower lobectomy (RLL), and (IV) CT and CTLAV for left lower lobectomy (LLL) at 12 months. The ppo values calculated by S for RUL (FEV1 at 3 and 12 months and %DLCO at 3 months) and by all four methods for LLL (FEV1 and %DLCO at 3 months) were smaller than the po values. CONCLUSIONS: The S method is adequate for calculating ppoFEV1 and ppo%DLCO when patients are classified as non-COPD and COPD. However, S sometimes overestimates the ppoFEV1 and ppo%DLCO when patients are classified according to the resected lobe. The CTLAV method may be the method of choice instead of S for calculating ppoFEV1 and ppo%DLCO in patients who undergo lung lobectomy despite the presence or absence of airflow limitation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]