Skip to main content

The importance of endobag use with incision-protective devices in VATS lung resection: a preliminary study

Abstract

Objective

The advent of new techniques such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for the removal of lung segments leads to compression of the surgical specimen, with the possible dissemination of neoplastic cells. The sheer volume of surgeries performed using these techniques has caused many institutions to stop removing the surgical specimen using an endobag, even when retractors/protectors are used in the instrumentalization incision. This study aimed to collect data from patients undergoing lung resection by VATS and analyze the cytopathological results of the collected material.

Results

A total of 47 endobag fluid samples were collected from patients who underwent VATS. The surgical specimen was subjected to histopathological analysis, and all patients underwent pathological TNM staging. In the cytopathological analyses, only 2 (4.3%) specimens of endobag fluid aspirate were positive for neoplastic cells. In these two cases, the tumors were peripheral, both with diagnoses of moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma and with classifications of T1bN0M0 and T3N0M0. These results indicate that although there is a low incidence of tumor cells in endobag fluid, it is always better to perform surgery using all available protective measures to avoid tumor implantation in the thoracic cavity to the greatest extent possible.

Introduction

Notable changes in the epidemiology and prevention of lung cancer have occurred in the last decade due to changes in smoking habits, advances in the understanding of tumor genetics and the role of the immune system in cancer control and new treatment options [1,2,3,4]. Despite these advances, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death worldwide [5, 6]. Since 1985, lung cancer has been the leading cause of mortality worldwide, and approximately 13% of all new cancer cases are lung cancer [7]. The incidence rate has been decreasing since the mid-1980s among men and since the mid-2000s among women, possibly due to changes in smoking cessation behavior [7]. The relative 5-year survival rate for lung cancer is 18%, and only 16% of these cancers are diagnosed at an early stage, in which case the 5-year survival rate is 56% [6, 7].

In the current state of the art, lung cancer can be diagnosed histopathologically with sputum cytology, thoracentesis, accessible lymph node biopsy, bronchoscopy, transthoracic needle puncture, biopsy by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or thoracotomy [8,9,10,11]. The initial evaluation of metastatic disease depends on the patient's history and the results of the physical examination, laboratory tests, chest computed tomography and positron emission tomography, as well as tissue confirmation if there is suspected mediastinal involvement. The need for an additional evaluation for metastases depends on the clinical presentation [8, 12]. Treatment and prognosis are closely linked to the histological type and tumor staging. For non-small-cell carcinomas at stages I to IIIA, surgical resection is preferred [13, 14]. Advanced non-small-cell carcinoma is treated with a multimodal approach that may include radiotherapy, chemotherapy, target cell therapy, immunotherapy and palliative care [15].

In contemporary VATS lobectomy or segmentectomy, the essential characteristic is that the view is achieved and exhibited using video technology and not direct vision. The need for some type of utilitarian incision to allow the removal of the surgical specimen gives the technique different requirements than diagnostic pleuroscopy. In VATS, there is no need to maintain carbon dioxide inflation without intracavitary leakage, as is necessary for laparoscopy. In the thorax, the lungs collapse, and the ribs maintain the space. A large incision is necessary to remove the surgical specimen containing the tumor; this incision allows the insertion of the optical device and some conventional surgical instruments, and one or two trocars can be used, depending on the selected technique [16,17,18,19,20]. The sheer volume of surgeries performed using VATS has caused many institutions to stop removing the surgical specimen into an endobag when retractors/protectors are used for the instrumentalization incision. The objective of this study was to collect data from patients undergoing lobectomy surgery or pulmonary segmentectomy by VATS and to analyze the cytopathological results of the collected material—either aspirated from the liquid or washed from the endobag—in order to determine whether it is necessary to use an endobag when using retractors/protectors for the instrumentalization incision.

Main text

Methods

This was a preliminary retrospective study that included 47 consecutive patients with lung injury who underwent thoracic surgery (lobectomy or pulmonary segmentectomy) via VATS between January 2020 and February 2021 at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Pedro Ernesto University Hospital, State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. All of the safety protocols that this type of intervention requires were followed, including the use of surgical incision protectors and the extraction of the surgical specimen into an endobag device (Fig. 1). The extracted material was sent for histopathological analysis and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging, and liquid samples, including both liquid aspirate and surgical specimens from the endobag, were submitted to cytopathological analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The endobag fluid was aspirated for cytopathological analysis (A). Then, the surgical specimen was removed from the endobag to determine whether more liquid had been collected (B). Finally, when the surgical specimen was removed from the endobag, more liquid was aspirated for cytopathological analysis (C)

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Pedro Ernesto University Hospital, UERJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, under number CAAE-48443921.2.0000.5259.

Results

The 47 study participants included 35 women and 12 men with a mean age of 60 ± 11 years. The general clinical characteristics and pulmonary function parameters in the preoperative period are shown in Table 1. On computed tomography of the chest, the following anatomical distribution of neoplasms was observed: peripheral lesions in 41 (87.2%) participants and central lesions in 6 (12.8%) participants.

Table 1 General clinical characteristics and pulmonary function in the preoperative period

Regarding histopathology, there was a clear predominance of adenocarcinomas; less frequently, squamous-cell carcinomas, carcinoid tumors, and large-cell carcinomas were observed. The distribution of cases according to histopathological type is shown in Fig. 2. Of all of the evaluated participants, only 2 (4.3%) had positive findings for neoplastic cells in the endobag fluid; both were diagnosed with moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. Regarding TNM staging, one of the cases that was positive for malignancy was classified as T1bN0M0, while the other was classified as T3N0M0.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of cases according to histopathological type in evaluated sample

Discussion

Lung cancers are categorized as small-cell carcinomas or non-small-cell carcinomas, and the latter are subdivided into squamous-cell carcinomas (25–30% of cases), adenocarcinomas (40% of cases) and large-cell carcinomas (10–15% of cases) [21,22,23]. In addition to these types, other tumors that can reach the lungs include carcinoid tumors (fewer than 5% of cases), adenoid cystic carcinomas, lymphomas and sarcomas [22]. These categories are used to inform the treatment decision and determine the prognosis [23,24,25]. Signs and symptoms may vary depending on the type of tumor and the extent of the metastases. The diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected lung cancer includes histopathological diagnosis; staging, including the evaluation of metastases; and functional evaluation of the patient for pulmonary resection surgery [23, 26]. In this study, unlike others [21,22,23], the vast majority of cases were adenocarcinomas (80.8%).

New surgical techniques, such as VATS, require measures to protect the surgical incision, such as retractors or protectors, to prevent neoplastic cells from implanting in the surgical wound due to the contact of surgical instruments with the incision tissues; furthermore, a protective bag should be used at the time of removal of the surgical specimen, particularly if it is a lobe or pulmonary segment [16,17,18,19,20]. The implantation of neoplastic cells in the chest wall after VATS lung surgery is rare. In the current study, the results of patients who were undergoing pulmonary lobectomy by VATS were investigated, regardless of the involved pulmonary lobe or the location of the lesion (peripheral or central), using an incision protector and an endobag to remove the surgical specimen. Specifically, the cytopathological results of the endobag fluid were analyzed. The incidence of neoplastic cells inside the endobag when the specimen was removed was low (less than 5%). However, it is still important to use an endobag for the removal of the surgical specimen in this type of surgery because of the possibility of neoplastic cell implantation in the thoracic cavity.

There are documented protection options in addition to the use of endobags, such as washing the thoracic cavity with serum after the resection and removal of the surgical specimen. All of these procedures have been described as effective for preventing tumor implants in the chest wall after pulmonary lobectomy [27,28,29]. However, there are documented cases of implantation in the chest wall after the VATS resection of tumors with specific diagnoses, such as thymoma; thus, VATS should be performed with extreme caution for these tumors because there are multiple cases of contamination metastasis reported in the literature [30, 31].

In conclusion, the findings of the present study indicate that although there is a low incidence of neoplastic cells in endobag fluid, endobag use should continue when retractors/protectors are used for the instrumentalization incision during VATS. This is because it is always best to perform surgery using all available protective measures to avoid implantation of neoplastic cells in the thoracic cavity to the greatest extent possible.

Limitations

One of the main limitations of this study was the small sample size. Another limitation that should be highlighted was the nonstandardization of the T descriptor, which ranged from T1b to T3. This lack of standardization could interfere with the results, especially in larger tumors. In fact, the size of the tumor is more important than its location since during the removal of surgical specimens, larger tumors undergo greater compression, regardless of the central or peripheral location of the lesion. Another issue is the need to evaluate patients with tumors of any size that invade the visceral pleura, as these tumors may be more likely to disseminate neoplastic cells when the surgical specimen is removed.

Availability of data and materials

Data and materials are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

DLCO:

Diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide

FEV1 :

Forced expiratory volume in 1 s

FVC:

Forced vital capacity

TNM:

Tumor-Node-Metastasis

UERJ:

State University of Rio de Janeiro

VATS:

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

References

  1. Brambilla E, Travis WD. Lung cancer. In: World Cancer Report, Stewart BW, Wild CP (Eds). World Health Organization, Lyon 2014

  2. Fois SS, Paliogiannis P, Zinellu A, Fois AG, Cossu A, Palmieri G. Molecular epidemiology of the main druggable genetic alterations in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(2):612. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22020612.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Gierada DS, Pinsky PF. Survival following detection of stage I lung cancer by screening in the national lung screening trial. Chest. 2021;159(2):862–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.08.2048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mao Y, Yang D, He J, Krasna MJ. Epidemiology of lung cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2016;25(3):439–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2016.02.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwartz A, Cote M. Epidemiology of lung cancer. In: Ahmad A, Gadgeel SM, editors. Lung cancer and personalized medicine: current knowledge and therapies. New York: Springer; 2016. p. 21–41.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(1):9–29. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Instituto Nacional do Câncer. Ministério da Saúde. Brasil. https://www.inca.gov.br/tipos-de-cancer/cancer-de-pulmao.

  8. Silvestri GA, Gonzalez AV, Jantz MA, Margolis ML, Gould MK, Tanoue LT, et al. Methods for staging non-small cell lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(5 Suppl):e211S-e250S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-2355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. de Lima CD, Nunes RA, Saito EH, Higa C, Cardona ZJF, dos Santos DB. Results and complications of CT-guided transthoracic fine-needle aspiration biopsy of pulmonary lesions. J Bras Pneumol. 2011;37(2):209–16. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-37132011000200011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Simon M, Simon I, Tent PA, Todea DA, Haranguș A. Cryobiopsy in lung cancer diagnosis: a literature review. Medicina. 2021;57(4):393. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57040393.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Haranguş A, Berindan-Neagoe I, Toma L, Şimon I, Pop O, Şimon M. EBUS in optimizing non-small cell lung cancer diagnosis and treatment. Med Pharm Rep. 2021;94(2):176–84. https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-1725.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Novello S, Barlesi F, Califano R, Cufer T, Ekman S, Giaj Levra M, et al. Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v1-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw326.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rodriguez-Canales J, Parra-Cuentas E, Wistuba II. Diagnosis and molecular classification of lung cancer. Cancer Treat Res. 2016;170:25–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40389-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reck M, Rabe KF. Precision diagnosis and treatment for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(9):849–61. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1703413.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Siegel RL, Stein KD, Kramer JL, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):252–71. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen S, Geraci TC, Cerfolio RJ. Techniques for lung surgery: a review of robotic lobectomy. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2018;12(4):315–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2018.1448270.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Charloux A, Quoix E. Lung segmentectomy: does it offer a real functional benefit over lobectomy? Eur Respir Rev. 2017;26(146): 170079. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0079-2017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Young R, McElnay P, Leslie R, West D. Is uniport thoracoscopic surgery less painful than multiple port approaches. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20(3):409–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivu391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Akter F, Routledge T, Toufektzian L, Attia R. In minor and major thoracic procedures is uniport superior to multiport video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20(4):550–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivu375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ibrahim M, Menna C, Andreetti C, D’Andrilli A, Ciccone AM, Maurizi G, et al. Flexible videoscope for thoracoscopic lobectomy: evolution of uniportal technique. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(7):2056–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3865-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Nicholson AG, Yatabe Y, Austin JHM, Beasley MB, et al. The 2015 World Health Organization Classification of lung tumors: impact of genetic, clinical and radiologic advances since the 2004 classification. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10(9):1243–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0000000000000630.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Detterbeck FC, Boffa DJ, Kim AW, Tanoue LT. The eighth edition Lung Cancer Stage Classification. Chest. 2017; 151(1): 193–203. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M, Nicholson AG, Geisinger K, Yatabe Y, et al. Diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma in resected specimens: implications of the 2011 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/AmericanThoracic Society/European Respiratory Society classification. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(5):685–705. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0264-RA.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ji G, Bao T, Li Z, Tang H, Liu D, Yang P, Li W, Huang Y. Current lung cancer screening guidelines may miss high-risk population: a real-world study. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07750-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang Q, Chen L, Yang L, Huang Y. Diagnostic and prognostic values of circular RNAs for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J. 2021;97(1147):286–93. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2019-137178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Herbst RS, Heymach JV. Lippman SM (2008) Lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(13):1367–80. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0802714.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lim E, Ali A, Theodorou P, Nicholson AG, Ladas G, Goldstraw P. Intraoperative pleural lavage cytology is an independent prognostic indicator for staging non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127(4):1113–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.10.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kondo H, Naruke T, Tsuchiya R, Goya T, Suemasu K, Yamagishi K, et al. Pleural lavage cytology immediately after thoracotomy as a prognostic factor for patients with lung cancer. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1989;80(3):233–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349-7006.1989.tb02298.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Nakamura T, Otsuki Y, Nakamura H, Funai K. Pleural lavage cytology after lung resection in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and the feasibility of 20 mL saline solution. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(1):283–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vannucci J, Pecoriello R, Ragusa M, Puma F. Multiple pleuropericardial implants of thymoma after videothoracoscopic resection. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;11(5):696–7. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2010.246322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lucchi M, Davini F, Ricciardi R, Duranti L, Boldrini L, Palmiero G, et al. Management of pleural recurrence after curative resection of thymoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(5):1185–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.09.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnólogico [CNPq; #302215/2019–0], Brazil, and Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro [FAPERJ; Grant number #E-26/202.679/2018 and #E-26/010.002124/2019], Brazil.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

CALN, AJL, IMF, CH, RAN, CETL and EHS designed the study and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agnaldo José Lopes.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Pedro Ernesto University Hospital, State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, under number CAAE-48443921.2.0000.5259 and all patients approved and consented in participating of this study. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Noguera, C.A.L., Lopes, A.J., Mathias Filho, I. et al. The importance of endobag use with incision-protective devices in VATS lung resection: a preliminary study. BMC Res Notes 15, 158 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06047-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06047-7

Keywords

  • Pulmonary resection
  • Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery
  • Endobag fluid