Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Aug 28;25(1):410.
doi: 10.1186/s12890-025-03819-2.

Effect of radical resection of lung cancer combined with breathing training on lung cancer patients in thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis

Biao Lu  1 , Xiaobing Li  2 , Hao Jiang  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effect of radical resection of lung cancer combined with breathing training on lung cancer patients in thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis

Biao Lu et al. BMC Pulm Med. .

Abstract

Background: Its objective was to use meta-analysis (MA) to methodically assess the impact of perioperative breathing exercises on the postoperative rehabilitation of patients with lung cancer (LC) having radical resection. METHODS: PubMed, and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on radical resection of LC combined with perioperative respiratory training from January 1995 to January 2024. After quality assessment, MA was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.

Results: A total of 14 studies involving 880 patients were included, of which 434 patients received perioperative breathing training (Intervention group, IG). The differences between the two groups in terms of MIP (MD = -13.31, 95% CI: [-24.43, -2.19]; Z = 2.35, P = 0.02), FVC (MD = -0.23, 95% CI = [-0.36, -0.11]; Z = 3.69, P = 0.0002), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) values (MD = 36.42, 95% CI: [4.37, 68.48]; Z = 2.23, P = 0.03), incidence of pneumonia (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20-0.72; Z = 2.95, P = 0.003), and complication rates (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.46-0.94; Z = 2.29, P = 0.02) were statistically significant. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in MEP (MD = -6.10, 95% CI: [-12.10, -0.11]; Z = 2.00, P = 0.05), FEV1 (MD = -0.25, 95% CI = [-0.58, 0.08]; Z = 1.47, P = 0.14), FEV1/FVC (MD = -3.78, 95% CI = [-7.65, 0.09]; Z = 1.91, P = 0.06), PEF (MD = -15.02, 95% CI = [-45.88, 15.83]; Z = 0.95, P = 0.34), atelectasis (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.24-1.12; Z = 1.68, P = 0.09), pneumothorax (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.63-2.29; Z = 0.57, P = 0.57), and mechanical ventilation incidence (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.34-2.91; Z = 0.01, P = 0.99).

Conclusion: This MA demonstrates that perioperative respiratory training significantly improves MIP, FVC, and 6MWT in patients undergoing radical LC surgery, while effectively reducing the incidence of postoperative pneumonia and overall complications. However, its impact on MEP, certain pulmonary function parameters (FEV1, FEV1/FVC, PEF), and specific complications (atelectasis, pneumothorax, mechanical ventilation requirement) did not reach statistical significance. The findings support the inclusion of respiratory training in perioperative rehabilitation programs for LC patients to optimize postoperative recovery outcomes.

Keywords: Breathing training; Lung function; MA; Postoperative pulmonary complications; RMS; Radical resection of LC.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Procedures for literature inclusion and exclusion
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Quality assessment of the included studies. (A is summary of quality assessment; B shows the quality assessment details)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of MIP between the two groups
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison of MEP between the two groups
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
MA FOP for contrast of lung function. (A: FVC; B FEV1; C FEV1/FVC ratio; D PEF)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
MA FOP of exercise capacity comparison
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
MA FOP for contrast of postoperative pulmonary complications
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
FUP of MA for publication bias
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Schabath MB, Cote ML. Cancer progress and priorities: lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28(10):1563–79. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Liu H. Effect of traditional medicine on clinical cancer. Biomedical J Sci Tech Res. 2020;30(4):23548–51.
    1. Duma N, Santana-Davila R, Molina JR. Non-Small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(8):1623–40. - PubMed
    1. Jiménez-Tornero J, Cortés-Flores AO, Chávez-Tostado M, Morgan-Villela G, Del Zuloaga-Fernández C, Del Zuloaga-Fernández R, García-González LA, Fernández-Avalos VS, Miranda-Ackerman RC, Alvarez-Villaseñor AS, Ambriz-González G, Barbosa-Camacho FJ, Fuentes-Orozco C, Contreras-Cordero VS, González-Ojeda A. Effect of a preoperative single-dose steroid on pulmonary function and postoperative symptoms after modified radical mastectomy: results of a randomized clinical trial. Gland Surg. 2020;9(5):1313–27. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baumeister SE, Baurecht H, Nolde M, Alayash Z, Gläser S, Johansson M, Amos CI, International Lung Cancer Consortium, Johnson EC, Hung RJ. Cannabis use, pulmonary function, and lung cancer susceptibility: a Mendelian randomization study. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16(7):1127–35. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources