Thoracoscopic vs open resection of congenital lung lesions: a meta-analysis

BackgroundSeveral comparative studies are published evaluating both the open and the minimally invasive approaches for congenital lung lesions with inconsistent results. Our objective was to compare both procedures using systematic review and meta-analysis methodology.MethodsAll publications describing both interventions were reviewed. The statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5 software (Cochrane library).Main ResultsNo randomized trials were identified. Six retrospective studies were identified and were included in this study. There was no significant difference in overall complication rates between both techniques. Lengths of hospital stay as well as days with chest tube in place were longer with the open approach. There was no difference in the duration of surgery. Postoperative pain management was heterogeneous between studies. No study looked at long-term follow-up. Subgroup analysis for congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation of the lung was done.ConclusionsOur results suggest no differences between thoracotomy versus thoracoscopy for congenital lung lesions with respect to overall complications and the duration of surgery. However, length of hospital stay and days with chest tube in place were longer after the open approach. Thoracoscopic resection is a safe and feasible alternative to open resection of congenital lung lesions in experienced hands.