Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Our objective was to report the incidence, management, and outcomes of patients who developed a secondary pneumothorax while admitted for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS:A single-institution, retrospective review of patients admitted for COVID-19 with a diagnosis of pneumothorax between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020, was performed. The primary assessment was the incidence of pneumothorax. Secondarily, we analyzed clinical outcomes of patients requiring tube thoracostomy, including those requiring operative intervention. RESULTS:From March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2020, 118 of 1595 patients (7.4%) admitted for COVID-19 developed a pneumothorax. Of these, 92 (5.8%) required tube thoracostomy drainage for a median of 12 days (interquartile range 5-25 days). The majority of patients (95 of 118, 80.5%) were on mechanical ventilation at the time of pneumothorax, 17 (14.4%) were iatrogenic, and 25 patients (21.2%) demonstrated tension physiology. Placement of a large-bore chest tube (20 F or greater) was associated with fewer tube-related complications than a small-bore tube (14 F or less) (14 vs 26 events, P = .011). Six patients with pneumothorax (5.1%) required operative management for a persistent alveolar-pleural fistula. In patients with pneumothorax, median hospital stay was 36 days (interquartile range 20-63 days) and in-hospital mortality was significantly higher than for those without pneumothorax (58% vs 13%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:The incidence of secondary pneumothorax in patients admitted for COVID-19 is 7.4%, most commonly occurring in patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and is associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 58%. Placement of large-bore chest tubes is associated with fewer complications than small-bore tubes.

OBJECTIVE:As the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic continues, appropriate management of thoracic complications from Coronavirus Disease 2019 needs to be determined. Our objective is to evaluate which complications occurring in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 require thoracic surgery and to report the early outcomes. METHODS:This study is a single-institution retrospective case series at New York University Langone Health Manhattan campus evaluating patients with confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 infection who were hospitalized and required thoracic surgery from March 13 to July 18, 2020. RESULTS:From March 13 to August 8, 2020, 1954 patients were admitted to New York University Langone Health for Coronavirus Disease 2019. Of these patients, 13 (0.7%) required thoracic surgery. Two patients (15%) required surgery for complicated pneumothoraces, 5 patients (38%) underwent pneumatocele resection, 1 patient (8%) had an empyema requiring decortication, and 5 patients (38%) developed a hemothorax that required surgery. Three patients (23%) died after surgery, 9 patients (69%) were discharged, and 1 patient (8%) remains in the hospital. No healthcare providers were positive for Coronavirus Disease 2019 after the surgeries. CONCLUSIONS:Given the 77% survival, with a majority of patients already discharged from the hospital, thoracic surgery is feasible for the small percent of patients hospitalized with Coronavirus Disease 2019 who underwent surgery for complex pneumothorax, pneumatocele, empyema, or hemothorax. Our experience also supports the safety of surgical intervention for healthcare providers who operate on patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.

The number of thoracic surgery cases performed on the robotic platform has increased steadily over the last two decades. An increasing number of surgeons are training on the robotic system, which like any new technique or technology, has a progressive learning curve. Central to establishing a successful robotic program is the development of a dedicated thoracic robotic team that involves anesthesiologists, nurses, and bed-side assistants. With an additional surgeon console, the robot is an excellent platform for teaching. Compared to current methods of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), the robot offers improved wristed motion, a magnified, high definition three-dimensional vision, and greater surgeon control of the operation. These advantages are paired with integrated adjunctive technology such as infrared imaging. For pulmonary resection, these advantages of the robotic platform have translated into several clinical benefits, such as fewer overall complications, reduced pain, shorter length of stay, better postoperative pulmonary function, lower operative blood loss, and a lower 30-day mortality rate compared to open thoracotomy. With increased experience, cases of greater complexity are being performed. This review article details the process of becoming an experienced robotic thoracic surgeon and discusses a series of challenging cases in robotic thoracic surgery that a surgeon may encounter "beyond the learning curve". Nearly all thoracic surgery can now be approached robotically, including sleeve lobectomy, pneumonectomy, resection of large pulmonary and mediastinal masses, decortication, thoracic duct ligation, rib resection, and pulmonary resection after prior chest surgery and/or chemoradiation.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in patient reluctance to seek care due to fear of contracting the virus, especially in New York City which was the epicentre during the surge. The primary objectives of this study are to evaluate the safety of patients who have undergone pulmonary resection for lung cancer as well as provider safety, using COVID-19 testing, symptoms and early patient outcomes. METHODS:Patients with confirmed or suspected pulmonary malignancy who underwent resection from 13 March to 4 May 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS:Between 13 March and 4 May 2020, 2087 COVID-19 patients were admitted, with a median daily census of 299, to one of our Manhattan campuses (80% of hospital capacity). During this time, 21 patients (median age 72 years) out of 45 eligible surgical candidates underwent pulmonary resection-13 lobectomies, 6 segmentectomies and 2 pneumonectomies were performed by the same providers who were caring for COVID-19 patients. None of the patients developed major complications, 5 had minor complications, and the median length of hospital stay was 2 days. No previously COVID-19-negative patient (n = 20/21) or healthcare provider (n = 9: 3 surgeons, 3 surgical assistants, 3 anaesthesiologists) developed symptoms of or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS:Pulmonary resection for lung cancer is safe in selected patients, even when performed by providers who care for COVID-19 patients in a hospital with a large COVID-19 census. None of our patients or providers developed symptoms of COVID-19 and no patient experienced major morbidity or mortality.

BACKGROUND:Our objective is to report our outcomes and demonstrate our evolving technique for robotic sleeve resection of the airway, with or without lobectomy, using video vignettes. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed a single surgeon prospective database from October 2010 to October 2019. RESULTS:Over 9 years, there were 5,573 operations of which 1951 were planned for a robotic approach. There were 755 robotic lobectomies, 306 robotic segmentectomies, and 23 consecutive patients were scheduled for elective completely portal, robotic sleeve resection. Sleeve lobectomy was performed in 18 patients: 10 right upper lobe, 6 left upper lobe, and 2 right lower lobe. Two patients had mainstem bronchus resections and two underwent right bronchus intermedius resections that preserved all of the lung. One patient had a robotic pneumonectomy. There was one conversion to open thoracotomy due to concern for anastomotic tension in a patient who received neoadjuvant therapy. All patients had an R0 resection. In the last 10 operations, we modified our airway anastomosis, using a running self-locking absorbable suture. The median length of stay was 3 days (range 1-11). There were no 30- or 90-day mortalities. Within a median follow-up of 18 months, there were no anastomotic strictures and no recurrent cancers. CONCLUSIONS:Our early and midterm results show that a completely portal robotic sleeve resection is safe and oncologically effective. The technical aspects of a robotic sleeve resection of the airway are demonstrated using video vignettes.

Background: Preoperative chemoRT is a standardof- care as shown in the CROSS trial (N Engl J Med 2012;366:2074-2084), Surgery is sometimes deferred in pts with clinical CR (cCR) based on lack of overall survival benefit (J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2310-2317, J Clin Oncol2007;25:1160-1168). Nivolumab has activity in advanced ESCC (Lancet Oncol 2017;18:631-639), and adding it to chemoRT may improve outcomes.
Method(s): This phase I/II study was designed to assess the safety and tolerability and efficacy of nivolumab added to chemoRT (6 weekly carboplatin AUC 2, paclitaxel 50mg/m2, RT 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions 5/7 days) for pts with TanyN1-3 or T3-4N0M0 ESCC. The phase I primary endpoint is 'unacceptable toxicity' at 28 days after the last dose of chemotherapy. The phase II primary endpoints are cCR (endoscopy + PET/CT) and pCR rates for pts undergoing surgery. Nivolumab is given q2W x2, then concurrent chemoRT with nivolumab q2W x3. If no cCR, pt proceeds to esophagectomy, then adjuvant nivolumab q2W x3; if cCR, pt has an option of no surgery but receives nivolumab q2W x3.
Result(s):From 7/20/17 to 12/27/18, 6 pts were enrolled. No unacceptable or grade 5 toxicities were observed. The most common grade 1/2 AEs in >1 pt were anorexia, myelosuppression, elevated AST and nausea. Grade 3/4 AEs in >1 pt were lymphopenia and leukocytopenia. 2 pts required hospitalizations (dyspnea 1, colitis 1). All pts completed therapy; 1 pt had dose delay due to grade 2 esophagitis; 2 pts progressed, 4 achieved cCR. Of 4 pts with cCR, 2 pts chose surgery and both achieved pCR. None of the 4 pts recurred.
Conclusion(s): ChemoRT with nivolumab is tolerable with manageable toxicities in locally advanced ESCC. Enrollment to the phase II portion ended because of slow accrual. Adverse Events. Grade 1 &2 in > 1 pt: 4/6: Anorexia & Anemia 3/6: Leukocytopenia Neutropenia Thrombocytopenia Nausea & Elevated AST 2/6: Hypomagnesemia Hypokalemia Grade 3 & 4 in > 1 pt: 5/6: Lymphopenia, 2/6: Leukocytopenia

One to two percent of ectopic parathyroid adenomas are found in the lower mediastinum and often these are best accessed via a sternotomy or thoracotomy. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is an alternative approach with less surgical trauma, decreased morbidity, shorter hospital stays, and superior cosmetic results. Ten years after the first VATS resection of an ectopic mediastinal parathyroid, a robot-assisted thoracoscopic approach was described. Here we describe a series of five robot assisted complete thymectomies in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism due to mediastinal ectopic parathyroid adenomas. A single surgeon, single institution case series of five consecutive robotic-assisted mediastinal parathyroidectomies was performed between March 2013 and September 2015. The patients' ages ranged from 31 to 65, 80 % were female, and all had primary hyperparathyroidism due to an ectopic parathyroid located in the lower mediastinum. Pre-operative imaging workup included Technetium 99-sestimibi parathyroid scan and CT scan of the chest. An ectopic parathyroid adenoma was successfully removed in all five cases, with intraoperative iOPTH decreasing ~50 % from baseline after 10 minutes. A hypercellular parathyroid was confirmed on pathologic exam in all specimens. Post-operative discharge and follow up calcium levels all returned to normal. There were no intraoperative complications, including no recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, no postoperative morbidity, and no mortalities. This case series demonstrates that a robot-assisted complete thymectomy for mediastinal parathyroid adenomas causing primary hyperparathyroidism provides excellent visualization of the mediastinum, is effective at reducing PTH and calcium levels, and is safe with no morbidity or mortality.