Faculty Bibliography

Our purpose is to identify the metrics used by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) to rank lobectomy and to show our process to improve. This is a review of our STS data for lobectomy and our results using the process of root cause analysis and lean methodology to improve our outcomes. The STS metrics are 30-day mortality, pneumonia, adult respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopleural fistula, pulmonary embolus, initial ventilator support greater than 48 hours, reintubation and respiratory failure, tracheostomy, myocardial infarction, or unexpected return to the operating room. Sixteen of 231 programs (7%) were ranked 3-star over a 3-year period from July 2011 to June 2014. The most common root cause analysis was failure to escalate care. The lean and process improvements we employed that seemed to improve the results were increasing exercise before surgery, adding a respiratory therapist, eliminating Foley catheters and arterial lines to reduce infection and to increase ambulation, offering stereotactic radiotherapy for marginal patients, favoring left upper segmentectomy over left upper lobectomy, and performing 91% of the last 493 lobectomies via a minimally invasive platform. Our major morbidity complications from August 2003 to December 2014 fell from 9.5% to 5.3% (P = 0.001) and mortality decreased from 3.3% to 0.54% (P < 0.0001). The metrics the STS used to rank lobectomy programs are 30-day mortality and predominantly respiratory complications. Root cause analysis, lean methodology, and process improvements allowed us to improve our lobectomy patient outcomes over time and to achieve a 3-star ranking over a 3-year time frame. These results may be obtainable by others.

Robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy can be considered for patients fit for conventional lobectomy. Contraindications include prohibitive lung function or medical comorbidities, multistation N2, gross N2 disease, or evidence of N3 disease. Team training, familiarity with equipment, troubleshooting, and preparation are critical for successful robotic lobectomy. Similar to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy, robotic lobectomy is associated with decreased blood loss, blood transfusion, air leak, chest tube duration, duration of stay, and mortality compared with thoracotomy. Robotic lobectomy offers many of the same benefits in perioperative morbidity and mortality, and the advantages of optics, dexterity, and surgeon ergonomics compared with VATS lobectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the associations of lymph node metastases (pN+), number of positive nodes, and pN subclassification with cancer, treatment, patient, geographic, and institutional variables, and to recommend extent of lymphadenectomy needed to accurately detect pN+ for esophageal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Limited data and traditional analytic techniques have precluded identifying intricate associations of pN+ with other cancer, treatment, and patient characteristics. METHODS: Data on 5806 esophagectomy patients from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration were analyzed by Random Forest machine learning techniques. RESULTS: pN+, number of positive nodes, and pN subclassification were associated with increasing depth of cancer invasion (pT), increasing cancer length, decreasing cancer differentiation (G), and more regional lymph nodes resected. Lymphadenectomy necessary to accurately detect pN+ is 60 for shorter, well-differentiated cancers (<2.5 cm) and 20 for longer, poorly differentiated ones. CONCLUSIONS: In esophageal cancer, pN+, increasing number of positive nodes, and increasing pN classification are associated with deeper invading, longer, and poorly differentiated cancers. Consequently, if the goal of lymphadenectomy is to accurately define pN+ status of such cancers, few nodes need to be removed. Conversely, superficial, shorter, and well-differentiated cancers require a more extensive lymphadenectomy to accurately define pN+ status.

Minimally invasive thoracic surgery, when compared with open thoracotomy, has been shown to have improved perioperative outcomes as well as comparable long-term survival. Robotic surgery represents a powerful advancement of minimally invasive surgery, with vastly improved visualization and instrument maneuverability, and is increasingly popular for thoracic surgery. However, there remains debate over the best robotic approaches for lung resection, with several different techniques evidenced and described in the literature. We delineate our method for total port approach with four robotic arms and discuss how its advantages outweigh its disadvantages. We conclude that it is preferred to other robotic approaches, such as the robotic assisted approach, due to its enhanced visualization, improved instrument range of motion, and reduced potential for injury.

Robotic segmentectomy can be a useful technique for patients with suboptimal pulmonary reserve, or for small peripheral stage I tumors. Port placement and conduct of operation is described for the various segmentectomies. Results for robotic segmentectomy are comparable to that for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) segmentectomy.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lung cancer has been associated with decreased perioperative morbidity while maintaining similar long-term survival when compared to open thoracotomy. Robotic thoracic surgery constitutes an evolutionary step in this field, beckoning dramatic advancements both in visualization as well as surgical instrument range of motion and ergonomics. As such, robotic thoracic surgery is growing in adoption worldwide. One of its oft-cited disadvantages, however, is increased operative time, especially for less-experienced surgeons. We describe an assortment of tips and tricks that we conclude can safely reduce robotic operative duration.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to report our outcomes of teaching and performing minimally invasive robotic lobectomy. METHODS: Robotic lobectomy was divided into 19 specific sequential technical maneuvers. The number of steps residents could perform in a set period of time was recorded. Video review by the attending surgeon and coaching were used to improve what residents could safely perform. Outcomes compared were percentage of maneuvers that general surgical or cardiothoracic residents (fellows) completed, operative times, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined metrics of patient outcomes. RESULTS: There were 520 consecutive robotic lobectomies over 5 years. The various maneuvers completed by general surgical residents (N = 35) and cardiothoracic residents (N = 7) increased over time, for example, steps 1 to 5 increased 20% and 70% compared with 80% and 90% (P < .001), step 8 increased 0% and 50% compared with 90% and 100% (P < .0001), and step 19 increased 30% and 50% compared with 90% and 100% (P = .001), respectively. Operative outcomes, including intraoperative blood loss, median number of lymph nodes, median length of stay, major morbidity, and 30-day and 90-day mortality, were no different. Operative time initially increased and then decreased over time. Conversion to thoracotomy (15% to 2.5%, P = .042) and major vascular injury (3% to 0%, P = .018) decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic lobectomy can be safely taught to residents without compromising patient outcomes by dividing it into a series of surgical maneuvers. Recording outcomes for each step and using video review and coaching techniques may help increase the percent of maneuvers residents can complete in a set time.