Comparison of three approaches for accessory lung lobectomy in the canine cadaveric model: Intercostal thoracotomy, median sternotomy, and a transdiaphragmatic approach combined with caudal median sternotomy

Camille B Duvieusart; Laura A Barbur; Marie F Burneko; Rebecka S Hess

doi:10.1111/vsu.14174

Comparison of three approaches for accessory lung lobectomy in the canine cadaveric model: Intercostal thoracotomy, median sternotomy, and a transdiaphragmatic approach combined with caudal median sternotomy

Vet Surg. 2024 Oct 29. doi: 10.1111/vsu.14174. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Camille B Duvieusart¹, Laura A Barbur¹, Marie F Burneko², Rebecka S Hess²

Affiliations

¹ Friendship Hospital for Animals, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
² Ryan Animal Hospital, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

PMID: 39468878
DOI: 10.1111/vsu.14174

Abstract

Objective: To describe a combined transdiaphragmatic and caudal median sternotomy (TDCM) approach to the accessory lung lobe and to compare its accessibility with intercostal thoracotomy (ICT) and median sternotomy (MS).

Study design: Cadaveric study.

Animals: Twelve canine cadavers.

Methods: Cadavers underwent an accessory lung lobectomy using an articulating EndoGIA stapler via randomly assigned approach: ICT (n = 4), MS (n = 4) or TDCM (n = 4). The percentage of accessory lung tissue removed was measured in surface area and weight. Exposure was measured as area of cavitary or bicavitary exposure at maximal retraction, by tracing a line around the circumference of the exposed cavity using an imaging software. Staple line leak pressures were evaluated to 40 cmH₂O.

Results: The average area of exposure was larger in the TDCM approach (TDCM = 193.5 cm², MS = 106.5 cm², ICT = 73.5 cm²); (p = .01). Two of four ICT staple lines leaked at 40 cmH₂O or lower, and 1/4 MS resulted in iatrogenic damage to an adjacent lobe. There was no difference in the percentage of the lobe excised by weight or surface area between groups.

Conclusion: The transdiaphragmatic and caudal median sternotomy approach provided greater exposure, although the percentage of the lobe excised and the surgical time did not differ between approaches.

Clinical significance: All three approaches allowed for adequate excision of the accessory lung lobe (ALL) with similar surgical times; however, the TDCM approach provided a greater area of exposure, which could increase accessibility to the ALL.