Bilobectomy Versus Lobectomy for XXXX : A Comparative Study of Outcomes, Long-Term Survival, and Quality of Life.

@entity1 @entity1353 @entity1149 @entity3012
BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare long-term survival and quality of life (QOL) outcomes after bilobectomy and lobectomy for @entity1149 @entity1 . METHODS: A cohort of 951 consecutive @entity1 was identified from a single treatment institution, of whom 128 underwent bilobectomy and 823, lobectomy. Propensity score matching (1:3) was applied to balance known confounders between the two surgical groups and resulted in 512 @entity1 (matched cohort). Unmatched and matched analyses were performed to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups, including operative mortality rate, morbidity rate, long-term survival, overall QOL, and specific symptoms. RESULTS: Operative mortality was higher in the bilobectomy group than in the lobectomy group (2.3% versus 0.5%, p = 0.022). Morbidity rates did not differ significantly between the two groups in either unmatched or matched cohort. In the unmatched analysis, the overall survival ( @entity3012 [p = 0.003]) and disease-free survival (DFS [p = 0.003]) were significantly lower in the bilobectomy group; whereas in the matched analysis, no significant difference was found in either @entity3012 (p = 0.473) or DFS (p = 0.387). Using multivariate analysis, the operation type was not found to be a significant factor for either @entity3012 (hazard ratio 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.91 to 1.52; p = 0.22) or DFS (hazard ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.95 to 1.58; p = 0.13). @entity1 who underwent bilobectomy appeared to have similar measures of QOL as lobectomy @entity1 , except for coughing and @entity1353 . CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that @entity1 with @entity1149 treated with bilobectomy had similar morbidity, @entity3012 , DFS, and overall QOL as @entity1 treated with lobectomy, but had higher mortality by matched analysis.
