Lung Volume Reduction Surgery
On this page
Direct answer
Removing a quarter or so of the most destroyed upper-lobe tissue — lung volume reduction surgery — restores the working position of the diaphragm and chest wall in selected patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, improving mechanics, exercise capacity and quality of life; it is not a cancer operation and does not meaningfully improve survival across the board. The National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) defined who benefits: upper-lobe-predominant disease with low baseline exercise capacity gained the most, while patients with FEV1 at or below 20% predicted plus either a DLCO at or below 20% or a homogeneous pattern had prohibitive 30-day mortality (about 16%) and should not be operated on.
What you must remember
- Physiological logic: hyperinflated emphysematous lungs flatten the diaphragm and splint the chest wall; resecting the most useless 20–30% restores elastic recoil balance and diaphragmatic curvature — the mechanism examiners want articulated.
- NETT selection: severe emphysema, FEV1 at or below about 45% predicted, hyperinflation (elevated RV and TLC), abstinence from smoking, and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation before and after surgery.
- The NETT high-risk contraindication: FEV1 at or below 20% predicted AND either DLCO at or below 20% or homogeneous emphysema — 16% 30-day mortality in that subgroup, the number to quote.
- Best responders: upper-lobe-predominant heterogeneous disease with low exercise capacity; homogeneous disease gains little.
- Approach: bilateral VATS or median sternotomy, stapled wedge resection of apical segments, staple lines buttressed with bovine pericardial strips or similar reinforcement to limit air leaks.
- The signature complication is prolonged air leak — fragile emphysematous parenchyma does not hold staples well; others include respiratory failure, pneumonia and arrhythmia.
- Bronchoscopic alternative: endobronchial valves in selected patients with upper-lobe disease and intact fissures (collateral ventilation assessed before placement).
- Mandatory prehabilitation: smoking cessation and a structured pulmonary rehabilitation programme are conditions of surgery, not suggestions — operating on a current smoker or an unrehabilitated patient is a known error.
Selecting a patient, end to end
A 64-year-old ex-smoker with severe COPD is housebound by breathlessness despite maximal inhalers, ambulatory oxygen and six months of rehabilitation. Pulmonary function shows FEV1 28% predicted, residual volume 210% predicted, TLC 128%, DLCO 34%; the perfusion scan and CT show marked upper-lobe-predominant destruction with relatively preserved bases; a 6-minute walk of 110 metres documents low exercise capacity. Her profile maps squarely onto the NETT-favoured subgroup: heterogeneous, upper-lobe-predominant, low exercise capacity — and critically, she is not in the high-risk box (FEV1 and DLCO both above 20%, pattern heterogeneous).
The operation is planned as bilateral VATS upper-lobe reduction: buttressed stapled wedges remove the apical third of each upper lobe. On the table the anaesthetist uses lung isolation and permissive hypercapnia; postoperatively the risks she was consented for — prolonged air leak (the commonest), respiratory failure, pneumonia — are managed with early extubation, aggressive physiotherapy and epidural analgesia to keep her coughing. At follow-up her FEV1 and walking distance improve and daytime oxygen is stopped — the outcome the trial predicted for this group.
Contrast the man with diffuse homogeneous emphysema, FEV1 18% and DLCO 19%: the NETT's high-risk criteria exclude him — his path is medical management, rehabilitation, and transplant or valve assessment.
Where students slip
The commonest conceptual error is describing LVRS as "removing bad lung so the good lung works better" without the mechanical argument — it is the restoration of diaphragmatic position and chest-wall mechanics, plus improved elastic recoil of the remaining lung, that carries the marks. The second is not knowing the exclusion: candidates offer surgery to the very patients the NETT showed die from it, and the FEV1-plus-DLCO 20% rule is precisely the examinable line. The third is forgetting that rehabilitation is a prerequisite rather than an afterthought; the trial's design made rehabilitation part of the treatment, and answers that omit it read as operative enthusiasm without programme discipline.
Frequently asked questions
How much lung is removed in LVRS?
Roughly 20–30% of the most emphysematous tissue, usually the apical portions of both upper lobes, taken as buttressed stapled wedge resections.
Which patients benefit most?
Those with upper-lobe-predominant heterogeneous emphysema and low baseline exercise capacity, established by the NETT as the subgroup with the largest gains in function and quality of life.
Which patients are excluded as high-risk?
Those with FEV1 at or below 20% predicted together with either DLCO at or below 20% or a homogeneous pattern — the NETT reported about 16% 30-day mortality in this group.
What is the commonest operative complication?
Prolonged air leak from fragile emphysematous staple lines, mitigated by buttressing material, careful ventilation and patience with chest drains.
Does LVRS improve survival?
Not overall in the trial population; benefits are functional — exercise capacity, quality of life and oxygen independence — with survival advantage confined to selected favourable subgroups.
What is the bronchoscopic alternative?
Endobronchial valve placement to collapse the most destroyed lobe, suitable for selected patients with upper-lobe-predominant disease, intact fissures and no collateral ventilation on physiological testing.