Background: Postoperative patients with lung cancer mostly experience different degrees of dyspnea and decreased activity tolerance, and these symptoms all significantly affect postoperative quality of life. The concept of pulmonary rehabilitation applicable to patients with chronic respiratory diseases is also applicable to patients with postoperative lung cancer. The current application of postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation for lung cancer is inconsistent, and reliable guidelines are lacking. The purpose of this study was to further verify the efficacy and feasibility of postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation for lung cancer patients, and to find a suitable local pulmonary rehabilitation program for postoperative patients with lung cancer that is clinically promoted in our department through this study.
Methods: We collected the clinical data of patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) wedge resection or lobectomy. The patients were divided into rehabilitation group (using three-ball breathing apparatus after discharge) and control group (routine follow-up after discharge) according to whether the patients were trained with three-ball breathing apparatus after operation. The detailed method using three-ball apparatus is as follows. To begin with, patients are required to put themselves in a comfortable position. Then, after the three-ball breathing apparatus put on the same plane of their eyes, patients hold the tube in their mouth closely and control their breath slowly. When patients inhale to their largest extent, the balls will rise up accordingly. Then they exhale. The evaluation results of pulmonary function, activity tolerance, anxiety scores and others were collected. All data was gathered at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. The effects of pulmonary rehabilitation training on wedge resection and lobectomy were compared.
Results: A total of 210 patients were included in this study, including 126 patients with VATS wedge resection and 84 patients with VATS lobectomies. No discrepancy was noticed when FEV1 loss between two groups were compared in the wedge resection patients, and the same results were also shown in patients undergoing lobectomy (12.8% ± 2.0% vs. 12.7% ± 1.9%, P = 0.84, wedge resection; 12.6% ± 2.9% vs. 12.1% ± 1.8%, P = 0.37, lobectomy). The loss of FVC in the control group was greater than that in the rehabilitation group for patients undergoing lobectomy (11.7% ± 5.2%, vs. 17.1% ± 5.6%, P < 0.001, lobectomy). No difference was found in the wedge resection patients between the control and rehabilitation groups (6.6% ± 2.8%, vs. 6.4% ± 3.2%, P = 0.76, lobectomy). Moreover, all patients showed no significant difference in 6MWD regardless of surgical procedure and with or without breathing exercises at T3 (392.6 ± 50.6 m, rehabilitation group vs. 394.0 ± 46.6 m, control group. P = 0.87, wedge resection; 381.3 ± 38.9 m, rehabilitation group vs. 369.1 ± 49.3 m, control group. P = 0.21, lobectomy).
Conclusions: For patients after thoracoscopic pulmonary wedge resection, the use of three-ball apparatus did not significantly improve postoperative pulmonary function and activity tolerance, dyspnea, and anxiety symptoms. In patients after thoracoscopic lobectomy, respiratory trainers were able to improve postoperative lung function but were unable to significantly improve dyspnea and anxiety symptoms. There was a significant benefit for the use of three-ball apparatus in patients after thoracoscopic lobectomy, whereas there was no significant benefit for the use of respiratory trainers after wedge resection. Registry: Medical Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University.
Registration number: no. 2022455.
© 2023. The Author(s).