Article Data

  • Views 174
  • Dowloads 22

Original Research

Open Access

Comparison of Three Methods of Predictive Postoperative FEV1 and DLCO Calculations in Relation to Their Observed Postoperative Values in Lung Resection

  • Vjekoslav Karadža1
  • Ivanka Karadža2

1Jordanovac Department of Thoracic Surgery, Zagreb University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia

2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Varaždin General Hospital, Varaždin, Croatia

DOI: 10.22514/sv.2020.16.0004 Vol.16,Issue 1,June 2020 pp.25-32

Published: 30 June 2020

*Corresponding Author(s): Vjekoslav Karadža E-mail:

PDF (812.04 kB)


Introduction: Three ways of simple calculations (segmental based on 18 segments method, segmental based on 19 segments method and subsegmental method) of predictive postoperative values of FEV1 and DLCO are in use during the preoperative survey for patients planned for lung resection as treatment of lung carcinoma as a part of risk assessment. Hypothesis: Segmental calculation method based on 19 segments is better than subsegmental method and segmental calculation method based on 18 segments in prediction of postoperative values of both FEV1 and DLCO one month after lung lobectomy. Materials and methods: Expected postoperative calculated values of FEV1 and DLCO (two segmental and one subsegmental method) of 52 patients undergone lobectomy are related to real postoperative values for same patients one month after surgery. Results: According to univariate analysis, real values of postoperative DLCO correlate most significantly with ppoDLCO calculated by segmental method (18 segments), but real values of postoperative FEV1 correlate most significantly with ppoFEV1 calculated by 19 overall segments segmental method. Data analysis as well showed that preoperative calculated PpoFEV1 and PpoDLCO underestimate real postoperative values of FEV1 and DLCO one month after lobectomy, but it is not statistically significant. Discussion: Same as contemporary guidelines suggest, ppoFEV1 calculation by 19 segments segmental method seems to be the best choice. PpoDLCO is maybe better to calculate by 18 segments segmental method.

Key words

Thoracic surgery, FEV1, DLCO

Cite And Share

Vjekoslav Karadža,Ivanka Karadža. Comparison of Three Methods of Predictive Postoperative FEV1 and DLCO Calculations in Relation to Their Observed Postoperative Values in Lung Resection. Signa Vitae. 2020. 16(1);25-32.


[1] Slinger P, Darling G. Preanesthetic assessment for thoracic surgery. In: Slinger P, editor. Principles and practice of anesthesia for thoracic surgery. New York etc. Springer; 2011.p.11-34.

[2] Brunelli A, Kim AW, Berger KI, Addrizzo-Harris DJ. Physiologic evaluation of the patient with lung cancer being considered for resectional surgery: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2013;143:166-90.

[3] Choi H, Mazzone P. Preoperative evaluation of the patient with lung cancer being considered for lung resection. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015;28:18-25.

[4] British Thoracic Society and the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland Working Party. BTS guidelines: guide-lines on the selection of patients with lung cancer for surgery. Thorax. 2001;56:89-108.

[5] Sawabata N, Nagayasu T, Kadota Y, Goto T, Horio H, Mori T, et al. Risk assessment of lung resection for lung cancer according to pul-monary function: republication of systematic review and proposals by guideline committee of the Japanese Association for Chest Surgery 2014. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;63:14-211.

[6] Beckles MA, Spiro SG, Colice GL, Rudd RM. The physiologic eval-uation of patients with lung cancer being considered for resectional surgery. Chest. 2003;123:105-14.

[7] Brunelli A, Refai M, Salati M, Xiume F, Sabbatini A. Predicted versus observed FEV1 and DLCO after major lung resection: a prospective evaluation at different postoperative periods. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:1134-9.

[8] Brunelli A, Xiume F, Refai M, Salati M, Marasco R, Sciarra V, et al. Evaluation of expiratory volume, diffusion capacity, and exercise tolerance following major lung resection. Chest. 2007;131:141-7.

[9] Culver BH. Preoperative assessment of the thoracic surgery pa-tient: pulmonary function testing. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;13:92.

[10] Nakahara K, Monden Y, Ohno K, Miyoshi S, Maeda H, Kawashima Y. A method for predicting postoperative lung function and its relation to postoperative complications in patients with lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 1985;39:260-5.

[11] Brunelli A, Charloux A, Bolliger CT, Rocco G, Sculier JP, Varela G, et al. ERS/ESTS clinical guidelines on fitness for radical therapy in lung cancer patients (surgery and chemo-radiotherapy). Eur Respir J. 2009;34:17-41.

[12] Baue AE. Chest wall, pleura, lungs and diaphragm. In: Davis JH, editor: Clinical surgery. St. Louis etc: The C.V. Mosby Company; 1987. p.1190-272.

[13] Boyden EA. A critique of the international nomenclature on bron-chopulmonary segments. Diseases of the chest. 1953;23:266-9.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) The Science Citation Index (SCI) is a citation index originally produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and created by Eugene Garfield. It (Science Citation Index Expanded) covers more than 8,500 notable and significant journals, across 150 disciplines in science and technology, from 1900 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index The CAS Source Index (CASSI) Search Tool is an online resource that can quickly identify or confirm journal titles and abbreviations for publications indexed by CAS since 1907, including serial and non-serial scientific and technical publications.

IndexCopernicus The Index Copernicus International (ICI) Journals database’s is an international indexation database of scientific journals. It covered international scientific journals which divided into general information, contents of individual issues, detailed bibliography (references) sections for every publication, as well as full texts of publications in the form of attached files (optional). For now, there are more than 58,000 scientific journals registered at ICI.

Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research The Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research (GFMER) is a non-profit organization established in 2002 and it works in close collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). The overall objectives of the Foundation are to promote and develop health education and research programs.

Scopus Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Embase Embase (often styled EMBASE for Excerpta Medica dataBASE), produced by Elsevier, is a biomedical and pharmacological database of published literature designed to support information managers and pharmacovigilance in complying with the regulatory requirements of a licensed drug.

Submission Turnaround Time

Editorial review: 1 - 2 days

Peer review: 1 - 2 months

Ahead of Print: within 2 months after being accepted

Notes: Your information is kept confide-ntial throughout the review process.