Simultaneous versus staged resections for bilateral pulmonary metastases.

BACKGROUND: For patients with bilateral pulmonary metastases, staged resections have historically been the preferred surgical intervention. During the spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic made patient travel to the hospital challenging and necessitated reduction in operative volume so that resources could be conserved. We report our experience with synchronous bilateral metastasectomies for the treatment of disease in both lungs. METHODS: Patients with bilateral pulmonary metastases who underwent simultaneous bilateral resections were compared with a cohort of patients who underwent staged resections. We used nearest-neighbor propensity score (1:1) matching to adjust for confounders. Perioperative outcomes were compared between groups using paired statistical analysis techniques. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2020, 36 patients underwent bilateral simultaneous metastasectomies. We matched 31 pairs of patients. The length of stay was significantly shorter in patients undergoing simultaneous resection (median 3 vs. 8 days, p < .001) and operative time was shorter (156 vs. 235.5 min, p < .001) when compared to the sum of both procedures in the staged group. The groups did not significantly differ with regard to postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: In a carefully selected patient population, simultaneous bilateral metastasectomy is a safe option. A single procedure confers benefits for both the patient as well as the hospital resource system.

The myth of pulmonary metastasectomy.

Pulmonary metastasectomy is widely and increasingly practiced in the belief that this intervention can cure patients with colorectal cancer, and that without it few survive 5 years. No good evidence exists supporting such convictions, indeed recent trial results challenge them. What evidence underpins this acceptance of illusory truths or misconceptions?