Faculty Bibliography

Objective: Chest tubes are frequently placed after thymectomy, without data to support this common practice. We report our experience in eliminating them after robotic thymectomy. Methods: This is a retrospective database review of patients who underwent robotic thymectomy performed by a single surgeon in which intraoperative chest tube insertion was not planned. Patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes are presented. Results: Between January 2018 and October 2022, 75 patients underwent robotic thymectomy performed by a single surgeon. Of those, 64 (85.3%) underwent a left-sided thoracic approach. The most common indication for resection was a suspicious anterior mediastinal mass. There were no conversions to an open operation. The median operative time was 72 minutes (range, 38-164 minutes), and the median estimated blood loss was 20 cc (range, 10-60 cc). Ten patients (13.3%) went home on the day of surgery, and all others (86.7%) were discharged on postoperative day 1. A chest tube was placed in 1 patient at time of closure because of a persistent air leak after extensive adhesiolysis from a prior thoracotomy; the tube was removed on the day of surgery after resolution of the air leak. No other patient required chest tube placement intraoperatively, immediately postoperatively, or within 60 days postoperation. Two patients underwent outpatient thoracentesis within 1 month postoperation for effusions. There were no 30- or 90-day mortality and no major morbidities. Conclusions: A chest tube after robotic thymectomy is not necessary in almost all patients and can be safely omitted. The dogmatic routine practice of chest tube placement should be questioned.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine if enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) would improve outcomes for three-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). METHODS:Patients with esophageal cancer undergoing MIE between March 2016 and August 2018 were consecutively enrolled, and were randomly divided into 2 groups: ERAS+group that received a guideline-based ERAS protocol, and ERAS- group that received standard care. The primary endpoint was morbidity after MIE. The secondary endpoints were the length of stay (LOS) and time to ambulation after the surgery. The perioperative results including the Surgical Apgar Score (SAS) and Visualized Analgesia Score (VAS) were also collected and compared. RESULTS:A total of 60 patients in the ERAS+ group and 58 patients in the ERAS- group were included. Postoperatively, lower morbidity and pulmonary complication rate were recorded in the ERAS+ group (33.3% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.04, 16.7% vs. 32.8%; p = 0.04), while the incidence of anastomotic leakage remained comparable (11.7% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.54). There was an earlier ambulation (3 [2-3] days vs. 3 [3-4] days, p = 0.001), but comparable LOS (10 [9-11.25] days vs. 10 [9-13] days; p = 0.165) recorded in ERAS+ group. The ERAS protocol led to close scores in both SAS (7.80 ± 1.03 vs. 8.07 ± 0.89, p = 0.21) and VAS (1.74 ± 0.85 vs. 1.78 ± 1.06, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of an ERAS protocol for patients undergoing MIE resulted in earlier ambulation and lower pulmonary complications, without a change in anastomotic leakage or length of hospital stay. Further studies on minimizing leakage should be addressed in ERAS for MIE.

The prevalence of burnout among physicians has been increasing over the last decade, but data on burnout in the specialty of cardiothoracic surgery are lacking. We aimed to study this topic through a well-being survey. A 54-question well-being survey was developed by the Wellness Committee of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) and sent by email from January through March of 2021 to AATS members and participants of the 2021 annual meeting. The 5-item Likert-scale survey questions were dichotomized, and associations were determined by Chi-square tests or independent samples t-tests, as appropriate. The results from 871 respondents (17% women) were analyzed. Many respondents reported at least moderately experiencing: 1) a sense of dread coming to work (50%), 2) physical exhaustion at work (58%), 3) a lack of enthusiasm at work (46%), and 4) emotional exhaustion at work (50%). Most respondents (70%) felt that burnout affected their personal relationships at least "some of the time," and many (43%) experienced a great deal of work-related stress. Importantly, most respondents (62%) reported little to no access to workplace resources for emotional support, but those who reported access reported less burnout. Most respondents (57%) felt that the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected their well-being. On a positive note, 80% felt their career was fulfilling and enjoyed their day-to-day job at least "most of the time." Cardiothoracic surgeons experience high levels of burnout, similar to that of other medical professionals. Interventions aimed at mitigating burnout in this profession are discussed.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The Thoraguard Surgical Drainage System is a novel device for drainage of air and fluid after cardiothoracic surgery. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A three-part study was conducted: a prospective observational safety and feasibility study, a retrospective comparison of patients managed with an analogue drainage system, and a clinician user-feedback survey. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:2.8 days (IQR 1-3) (P=0.004). Compared to an analogue system, the Thoraguard system had superior user-reported ability to detect air-leaks (17/23, 74%), better ease of patient ambulation (14/23, 61%), and better display of clinically relevant information (22/23, 96%). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The Thoraguard Surgical Drainage System provides safe and effective drainage post pulmonary resection. Compared to an analogue system, the Thoraguard system detected a higher number of air leaks and was associated with decreased chest tube duration and hospital length of stay. User survey data reported superior air leak detection, display of clinical data, and ease of use of the Thoraguard system.

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.

BACKGROUND:Conversion rates during minimally invasive surgery are generally examined in the limited scope of a particular procedure. However, for a hospital or payor, the cumulative impact of conversions during commonly performed procedures could have a much larger negative effect than what is appreciated by individual surgeons. The aim of this study is to assess open conversion rates during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across common procedures using laparoscopic/thoracoscopic (LAP/VATS) and robotic-assisted (RAS) approaches. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study using the Premier Database on patients who underwent common operations (hysterectomy, lobectomy, right colectomy, benign sigmoidectomy, low anterior resection, inguinal and ventral hernia repair, and partial nephrectomy) between January 2013 and September 2015. ICD-9 and CPT codes were used to define procedures, modality, and conversion. Propensity scores were calculated using patient, hospital, and surgeon characteristics. Propensity-score matched analysis was used to compare conversions between LAP/VATS and RAS for each procedure. RESULTS:A total of 278,520 patients had MIS approaches of the ten operations. Conversion occurred in 5% of patients and was associated with a 1.77 day incremental increase in length of stay and $3441 incremental increase in cost. RAS was associated with a 58.5% lower rate of conversion to open surgery compared to LAP/VATS. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:At a health system or payer level, conversion to open is detrimental not just for the patient and surgeon but also puts a significant strain on hospital resources. Use of RAS was associated with less than half of the conversion rate observed for LAP/VATS.

BACKGROUND:Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used in patients in whom conventional mechanical ventilatory support has failed. To date, published data have focused on survival from ECMO and survival to discharge. In addition to survival to discharge, this study reports 1-year follow-up data for patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital. METHODS:A single-institution, retrospective review of all patients with severe COVID-19 who were cannulated for VV-ECMO between March 10, 2020 and May 1, 2020 was performed. A multidisciplinary ECMO team evaluated, selected, and managed patients with ECMO support. The primary outcome of this study was survival to discharge. Available 1-year follow-up data are also reported. RESULTS:A total of 30 patients were supported with VV-ECMO, and 27 patients (90%) survived to discharge. All patients were discharged home or to acute rehabilitation on room air, except for 1 patient (3.7%), who required supplemental oxygen therapy. At a median follow-up of 10.8 months (interquartile range [IQR], 8.9-14.4 months) since ECMO cannulation, survival was 86.7%, including 1 patient who underwent lung transplantation. Of the patients discharged from the hospital, 44.4% (12/27) had pulmonary function testing, with a median percent predicted forced expiratory volume of 100% (IQR, 91%-110%). For survivors, a 6-minute walk test was performed in 59.3% (16/27), with a median value of 350 m (IQR, 286-379 m). CONCLUSIONS:A well-defined patient selection and management strategy of VV-ECMO support in patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in exceptional survival to discharge that was sustained at 1-year after ECMO cannulation.