Reasons not to perform uniportal VATS lobectomy

Abstract

The uniportal video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) approach to lung lobectomy has generated phenomenal interest in recent years. It promises to offer patients less morbidity and faster recovery, even when compared to conventional multiportal VATS. However, critics of the uniportal VATS approach may raise concerns about whether this most minimally invasive surgical approach for lung surgery may compromise safety and treatment efficacy. This debate has great potential importance not only in determining how patients are operated on, but in understanding how 'success' is gauged in major pulmonary surgery. This article explores both sides of this debate, drawing on the experience of how clinical research in multiportal VATS evolved over the years. Systematic generation of clinical evidence with progressively increasing sophistication is required to fairly evaluate the uniportal VATS approach. A review of the current literature suggests that there remain many large gaps in the evidence surrounding uniportal VATS. Hence, at the present time, the reasons voiced by critics as to why uniportal VATS should not be performed should not be lightly dismissed. Instead, it behoves surgeons on both sides of the debate to continue to generate good clinical evidence to resolve it.

Keywords: Evidence; lobectomy; single-incision; single-port; thoracoscopic surgery; uniportal; video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS).