Contents

Lung Volume Reduction SurgeryEdit

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is a thoracic operation aimed at improving breathing in carefully selected patients with advanced emphysema, a form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). By removing or rearranging diseased, nonfunctional portions of the lung, LVRS reduces hyperinflation, improves diaphragmatic mechanics, and can lessen dyspnea while enhancing exercise capacity and quality of life in the right patient. The procedure can be performed through open thoracotomy or with minimally invasive techniques such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), and it exists alongside other strategies to manage COPD that range from pharmacologic therapy to less invasive lung-volume reduction methods. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema are the broader contexts for LVRS, as the success of the operation depends on the particular pattern of lung destruction and patient factors.

The evidence base for LVRS grew with large, multicenter trials and long-term follow-up, most notably the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT). NETT helped identify which patients were most likely to benefit, showing that outcome depends strongly on disease distribution (for example, upper-lobe predominant disease with heterogeneous emphysema) and on optimized medical therapy before considering surgery. The trial also highlighted significant perioperative risks and the need for specialized expertise, multidisciplinary evaluation, and careful patient selection. As technology and techniques have evolved, LVRS sits alongside bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction options and other COPD therapies as part of a personalized treatment approach. National Emphysema Treatment Trial, Bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction.

History and development

Early concepts of removing diseased lung tissue to improve respiratory mechanics date back several decades, evolving from open surgical approaches to less invasive methods as surgical techniques and patient management improved. The NETT trial, completed in the early 2000s, was a turning point in defining who benefits most from LVRS and in identifying substantial procedural risks. Since then, refinements in patient selection criteria, imaging assessment, and operative technique have shaped current practice, with a move toward less invasive approaches when possible. Lung volume reduction surgery sits within the broader history of thoracic interventions for COPD, alongside transplant and non-surgical strategies. Emphysema.

Indications and patient selection

LVRS is not suitable for all patients with COPD or emphysema. Indications typically focus on those with severe dyspnea and hyperinflation despite optimized medical therapy and pulmonary rehabilitation. Important considerations include:

  • Disease distribution and imaging phenotype: heterogeneous emphysema with upper-lobe predominance tends to respond more favorably in many studies. Emphysema patterns assessed by computed tomography (CT) imaging inform the selection process. Computed tomography.

  • Physiologic reserve and fitness for surgery: adequate cardiopulmonary reserve to withstand thoracic surgery and a recovery period is essential. Preoperative assessment often involves multidisciplinary teams. Pulmonary rehabilitation helps optimize condition before contemplating LVRS.

  • Functional and symptomatic status: thresholds for distance walked in six minutes, breathlessness scales, and quality-of-life measures help determine who is likely to gain meaningful benefit. Six-minute walk test.

  • Smoking status and comorbidities: cessation of smoking and management of coexisting conditions are standard prerequisites.

  • Alternatives and comparators: LVRS is considered in the context of other therapeutic options, including endobronchial approaches and medical management. Bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction.

Surgical techniques

LVRS can be performed via open thoracotomy or through minimally invasive methods. The general concept is to remove or reduce the volume of the most diseased portions of the lung to decrease total lung volume and improve mechanics, while preserving healthier tissue. Two common approaches are:

  • Open LVRS (thoracotomy): surgeons directly access the chest cavity and resect targeted lung tissue with stapling devices arranged to create stable defects that yield the desired reduction in lung volume. Closure strategies and chest drainage follow the procedure.

  • Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) LVRS: a minimally invasive variant using small incisions and a camera to guide tissue removal. VATS LVRS aims to reduce tissue trauma and shorten recovery while achieving similar functional goals as open LVRS.

In both approaches, careful attention to hemostasis, air leaks, and postoperative management is essential. The amount and location of tissue removed depend on preoperative imaging and intraoperative findings, with a focus on reducing hyperinflation while maintaining adequate gas exchange. Thoracic surgery, Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

Outcomes and prognosis

Numerous studies and follow-up data from selected centers report that LVRS can achieve clinically meaningful improvements in dyspnea, exercise capacity, and quality of life for appropriately chosen patients. In the best responders, there is evidence of sustained benefits beyond the early postoperative period. However, results are heterogeneous, reflecting differences in disease phenotype, comorbidity, and perioperative care. In NETT and subsequent analyses, upper-lobe predominant and heterogeneous disease tended to show the most consistent gains in selected subgroups, while perioperative mortality and complications underscored the need for specialized care. Long-term survival trends after LVRS vary by patient population and are influenced by the natural history of COPD and comorbid conditions. NETT, Pulmonary rehabilitation.

Risks and complications

LVRS carries risks associated with major thoracic surgery. Potential complications include:

  • Perioperative mortality and respiratory complications, particularly in older patients or those with limited reserve.
  • Postoperative air leaks and bronchopleural fistula, which may prolong drainage and hospitalization.
  • Pneumonia, atelectasis, or respiratory infections.
  • Persistent or recurrent dyspnea if disease progression occurs or if patient selection was suboptimal.
  • Length of hospital stay and recovery time, with a need for rehabilitation and support after discharge. Lung transplantation or alternative COPD therapies may be considered for some patients if LVRS is not suitable or unsuccessful.

Controversies and debates

LVRS remains a topic of ongoing discussion within the COPD treatment community. Key points of debate include:

  • Patient selection and generalizability: while NETT highlighted benefits in certain phenotypes, critics emphasize that many patients do not experience meaningful improvement and that the risks may outweigh benefits outside specialized centers. The emphasis on imaging phenotype and functional testing aims to narrow the candidate pool to those most likely to benefit. Emphysema.

  • Comparisons with less invasive approaches: bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction (BLVR), including endobronchial valves and other devices, offers a less invasive path to similar objectives for reducing hyperinflation in appropriately selected patients. The relative long-term durability, cost, and risk profiles of LVRS versus BLVR continue to be explored. Endobronchial valve, Bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction.

  • Cost-effectiveness and access: LVRS is resource-intensive, requires specialized surgical teams, and is typically offered in high-volume centers. Debates address how to allocate resources, ensure appropriate patient access, and balance upfront surgical costs with potential downstream improvements in function and reduced hospitalizations. Pulmonary rehabilitation.

  • Evolution of treatment landscape: as non-surgical techniques expand, some clinicians favor first-line bronchoscopic or medical strategies for patients with hyperinflation who may not tolerate surgery. This reflects a broader trend toward personalized, stepwise COPD management. Lung-volume reduction.

See also